 | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) If // and ** proved superior to {} and [], then going back and removing {} and [] (and of course automatically converting existing pages to // and **) would certainly be an option. (...) But it's only an issue under one obscure set of (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) —Brian H. Nielsen
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure what your above comment has to do with FTX supporting non-word aligned positions for the formatting characters, no matter which character set is used. I was attempting to point out that // and ** would seem to be more troublesome (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...) — Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Oh I agree that // and ** are potentially more troublesome than {} and [] in normal text -- and that's why {} and [] were chosen instead. But I think the "troublesome" part may be entirely solveable from a coding standpoint. (...) It depends. (...) (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| | | | |
