Re: asterisks disappear

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>]

>>>>> In <87oei8kl0m.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> Miles Bader wrote:

> Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:
>> I still think it is better to show all text by default.  It
>> doesn't mean abolishing emphasis but, for example:
>>
>> * scratch *  => *<bold>scratch</bold>*

> I understand what you mean.  For bold, it's not so bad.  But in the case
> of underlining, it's _really_ ugly -- underlined+non-hidden text looks
> _worse_ than simply doing no processing at all.

> [BTW, if you're going to retain the emphasis characters, apply the
> emphasis to them too.  <bold>*foo*</bold> looks less weird than
> *<bold>foo</bold>*.]

I agree.  I'm going to modify the default behavior of emphasis
bold during this week.  In addition to this, I'd like to improve
the customization type for the `gnus-emphasis-alist' variable so
that it may be easier to understand.  Probably, to show actual
regexps and `Match group' subsections will be unnecessary.

>> It might look indeed ugly.  However, there is likely to be this
>> custom (i.e. hiding asterisks) only in Gnus and others don't
>> seem to do so.

> I don't think it's so important what other clients do, I think it only
> matters that what Gnus does (1) `makes sense', and (2) doesn't screw up.

Indeed.  I only felt uneasy since I wrote buffer names in some
articles recently.

> In the case of _underlining_, Gnus' heuristics work very well -- there
> seem to be extremely few false matches -- but for *bold*, Emacs buffer
> names and common-lisp global-variables provide a source of frequent
> false matches.

> Since underlining+non-hidden looks _really_ bad, but bold+non-hidden is
> not that horrible, I think this means that they deserve independent
> defaults.

I agreed with you extensively.  Thank you.