Juan Manuel Macías <maciaschain@posteo.net> writes:

>> The priority appears to be intentional.
>
> I see. But then the compatibility with the rest of the emphasis is
> broken. I mean, the user would expect things like (_underline_) will be
> exported as (\uline{underline}), in the same way that (/emphasis/) is
> exported as (\emph{emphasis}). I would say there is a slight
> inconsistency in the syntax here.

I agree with you. I think that the initial intention was to avoid
parsing things like (x+y)_1+x_2 as underline.

However, thinking about it more, I feel that prioritising underline
should work better. The underline parser recently got changed into a
stricter version. Now, only underlines starting after spaces,-,(,',",
and { are recognised as an underlines.

So, the attached patch is changing the priority of the parsing.
Maybe Nicolas knows some tricky cases when the patch makes things wrong,
but those cases are certainly not covered by tests.

Best,
Ihor