Re: Improved (non-annoying) underlining

[Karl Kleinpaste <karl@charcoal.com>]

Bill White <billw@wolfram.com> writes:
>> I think whitespace
>> within text (not at the beginning of a line) should still be
>> underlined.

Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> writes:
> Agreed.

Well, if you really want that, then changing the regexp to
        "^[ \t]+\\|[ \t]*\n"
(which just adds `^' to the beginning) should take care of it.

That said, I really quite prefer it the way it is right now: When I
write (by hand) something which needs to be underlined, I don't
blindly write a single, long underline under the whole text; I
underline the individual words, which is the behavior the now-current
regexp induces.

I think the reason this is especially odd for Bill is that he has
customized the font sense of "underline" to something very very
different, which is not actually "underlining" at all, but is instead
a color shift, both foreground and background.

In any event, since we have yet another case of personal preference,
would it make sense to create (yet another) customizable regexp?  Call
it, say, gnus-article-emphasize-whitespace-regexp?

>> And speaking of improving underlining, punctuation in underlined text
>> disables underlining. Is there a way to fix that? (I haven't trawled
>> through the source).

> You can customize `gnus-emphasis-alist'.  The tricky part is avoiding
> false positives.

Yeah, that sort of thing has bothered me mildly for much too long.
I'll take a look at that alist today.

But Hrovje is right, we really do beat on regexps too much...

--karl