On 11/10/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
Or, and here's an idea I don't see much, we could define **bold** and
//italics// as *additional* ways to punctuate such things, and keep the
old ones until they wither and die.
L'//arc de Triompe// would be *entirely* unambiguous.
And wrong :) You mean L'**arc de Triomphe**. It's an appealing idea (and
certainly // and ** is better than '' and ''') but means the parser
passes
through an even more complex phase.
(As I continue to note, any extended syntax in this specific area
should track historical usage as closely as possible
to comply with the
Principle of Least Surprise.)
I don't think the principle of least surprise even comes into it. You
can't change syntax overnight
for far more pragmatic reasons, like you simply can't train everyone
on the new syntax
fast enough. Principle or no principle.
It shouldn't be all *that* hard to instrument the parser to flag such
constructs and put them in extra columns or a parallel
table.
Make analytical work a lot easier, too.
I'm not sure which constructs you're talking about? Why do you need to
flag
** and //?
Steve