Re: [emacs-wiki-discuss] Re: RFE: muse: highlight =verbatim=, similar to how *emph* and _under_ are

[Allen Halsey]

Michael Olson wrote:
> Allen Halsey <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > These get special highlight treatment:
> >
> > *empasized*
> >
> > _underlined_
> >
> > They get a face and the markup characters become invisible (very cool btw!)
> >
> > but not so for verbatim:
> >
> > =verbatim=
> >
> > How come?
>
>
> This was how John's original version of Muse treated verbatim
> characters, so I followed suit for the first release.  It's worth
> raising the issue, however.

I feel sorry for poor =verbatim= not getting highlights when _all_ her 
*friends* are.

> With emacs-wiki, the '=' signs remained in-place, but the text was
> marked up using `emacs-wiki-verbatim-face', which was grayish.
>
> Now that the first release is complete, I will implement something
> similar to this.

That'd be great. My preference would be for the '=' signs to become 
invisible. I don't understand why it is treated different.

> Would it be a good thing for people to be able to specify whether the
> '*', '_', and '=' characters are hidden when colorized?  There are
> times when I think this might be worthwhile.

I think it is true that some might prefer not having the markup 
character become invisible. That would be consistent with how mail 
clients, like Thunderbird, show *emphasized* text. A special font style 
is used, but the markup characters are still visible.

In fact, when I first tried emacs-wiki, I wasn't sure I liked the markup 
characters becoming invisible, even though I was impressed that emacs 
had that capability. I was concerned it would obfuscate the logical 
structure of my document, the way WYSIWYG editors I was escaping from 
do. But I've grown to like it. It certainly impresses my friends when I 
show them how neat emacs and muse are.

Allen