Updated <em> tag logic using _ #3
Open
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In markdown, an _ is something special ... One cannot just scan for every _ in a text and emphasize every text between _ (underscores). In many program languages, _ are used to represent a space in identifiers and functions etc.
Therefore, I've updated the markdown.lua logic to ensure that text between _ is only emphasized when the first _ starts with a space or any other non alpameric character, or the _ starts at the beginning of the text.
examples:
AI_CARGO_DISPATCHER gives AI_CARGO_DISPATCHER.
AI _CARGO_ DISPATCHER gives AI CARGO DISPATCHER.
_AI_CARGO_DISPATCHER gives AICARGO_DISPATCHER.
but!
AI*CARGO*DISPATCHER would still gives AICARGODISPATCHER !
I think this change makes a lot of sense and I hope this can be incorporated in the main master branch.
The way how I coded this may not be the most efficient, but I am sure that you'll understand why I approached the problem like this.
I have added
tests.svento the test mix to ensure that the above is properly tested.One test case in the original test cases now will give an error, and I think you need to review this. The test case itself is I think a lot of bollocks :-) I think this test case can be safely removed from the set, but it is your decision what to do with it :-)
thanks for your advice and I hope this pull request can be accepted!
Sven (FlightControl) Van de Velde