From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Leha Subject: Re: [RFC] Creole-style / Support for **emphasis**__within__**a word** Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:54:15 +0100 Message-ID: <87r45uthbc.fsf@med.uni-goettingen.de> References: <87zjl6ktu2.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwgimiqm.fsf@gmail.com> <87txaqmhzd.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNJk-0006LU-Bm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:54:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNJe-0007th-Go for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:54:36 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNJe-0007td-AX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:54:30 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WRNJd-000227-42 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:54:29 +0100 Received: from vpn-2092.gwdg.de ([134.76.2.92]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:54:29 +0100 Received: from andreas.leha by vpn-2092.gwdg.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:54:29 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi all, Bastien writes: [ ...] > > Also, there is no "backward-compatibility squad", only users who care > about what they like. I have been part in threads that discuss backward-compatibility. As it looks, there is the feeling that this ML is too(?) much concerned about backward-compatibility -- even in favour over new features or cleaner implementation (both of which the proposed emphasis change would be an example of, IIUC). In a way, I am happy that backward-compatibility is now a major concern. But on the other hand, it is not my intention to block enhancements. For the case at hand, I would happily type double letter emphasis, if that helps to get a clean implementation. If it even allows more features, that would be a benefit. My point of writing is this: If a change like this was going to happen, it would be very nice if a function was provided to change from the old style to the new style. This was (at least) once the case for a major backward incompatible change in babel and even if it did not work flawlessly it was a big help. I guess it would be easy for the lisp-guru who removes the regexp to turn it into such a function. But it would take quite some time for me to dig that regexp somewhen later and produce a working translation function from it... Anyway, as it looks this is probably hypothetical for this particular change. Regards, Andreas