unintended strike-through in table

unintended strike-through in table

[Skip Collins]

When I open the following table in org, the characters from the first
+ symbol in +bar to the last + symbol on the next line are struck out,
i.e. drawn with a line through the text.

#+STARTUP: showall
* foo
| C | D    |
| E | +bar |
|---+------|

I do not believe this is intended behavior for +strike-through+ text.
The + symbol serves triple duty in org syntax as a an indicator for
+stricken words+, a line drawing symbol in tables, and a #+keyword
prefix.

I see little reason to continue to support +strike-through+ text.
Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deprecate stricken text and
disable it by default, allowing for an option to turn it on for
backward compatibility.

Re: unintended strike-through in table

[Bastien]

Hi Skip,

Skip Collins <skip.collins@gmail.com> writes:

> I see little reason to continue to support +strike-through+ text.
> Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deprecate stricken text and
> disable it by default, allowing for an option to turn it on for
> backward compatibility.

I agree.  If no one object, I will make this change soon.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: unintended strike-through in table

[Gustav Wikström]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1154 bytes --]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> Hi Skip,
>
> Skip Collins <skip.collins@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I see little reason to continue to support +strike-through+ text.
> > Perhaps the simplest solution would be to deprecate stricken text and
> > disable it by default, allowing for an option to turn it on for
> > backward compatibility.
>
> I agree.  If no one object, I will make this change soon.
>
> Although I cannot recall myself having used strike-through text I wonder
what the reason is for removing the functionality? Is it just this, that it
(probably) isn't used much? Not a good argument in my book (especially due
to the uncertainty in usage). Would it not be better to fix the problem at
hand? Maybe by changing the symbol since + seems overloaded, would not - be
a better choice?

On a side-note, what is the intended behavior of bold, italic,
strike-through etc. regarding line-breaks? Since a single long line has the
same meaning in org as multiple consecutive short lines I think the
markup-elements above also should support multiple lines of text (but not
be valid between paragraphs)

Regards Gustav

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1701 bytes --]

Re: unintended strike-through in table

[Rasmus]

Skip Collins <skip.collins@gmail.com> writes:

> I do not believe this is intended behavior for +strike-through+ text.
> The + symbol serves triple duty in org syntax as a an indicator for
> +stricken words+, a line drawing symbol in tables, and a #+keyword
> prefix.

It can also be an item which is a problem with LaTeX math.  

Example:
\begin{equation}
x
+ y
wv
- z
\end{equation}

is translated to

\begin{equation}
x
\begin{itemize}
\item y
\end{itemize}
wv
\begin{itemize}
\item z
\end{itemize}
\end{equation}

I guess one could wrap it in #+begin_latex · #+end_latex, but that would
be cubersome.

–Rasmus

-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they are not