Subject:
|
Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jun 2003 02:39:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
14 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, William R. Ward wrote:
| |
What NNTP server do you use? I was under the impression that it was
written in Perl itself.
|
CNews.
| |
How about a different interpretation - // and ** (and don’t forget
__ for underlining) might not be interpreted the same as the {} and
[] of FTX, but would be interpreted like this:
s% (\W) (_\w.+\w_) (\W) %$1<u>$2</u>$3%xg;
s% (\W) (\*\w.+\w\*) (\W) %$1<b>$2</b>$3%xg;
s% (\W) (/\w.+\w/) (\W) %$1<i>$2</i>$3%xg;
Note that since the __, **, and // are inside the parens, and
therefore inside $2, they will be printed but the markup will be
added.
|
Doesn’t that look a bit redundant?
/italics/ and *boldface*
What do underlined underlines look like? Like this?--
_N_ew _E_ngland _L_EGO _U_sers _G_roup
Not sure how either any of those are an improvement.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
