Re: [Pan-users] underlines etc in pan

[Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom]

> > a. it's not what the poster originally wrote, and so might obscure what
> > they mean.
> 
> Hmm I don't think so. I know nobody who would write _this_ way without 
> meaning 
> underline.

        but that's the simple case. :) there's probably some degenerate
corner case where it breaks down. such as:

"If I call function do_foo in bar, is _does not mean do_foo_bar_"

        can you guarantee that your parser will render all that correctly?
        how much time will you spend getting it all right?
        will it be 'right' by everyone's interpretation of the sentence?
        will the underlining obscure the intended underscores, thus
obscuring the original poster's message? (I've seen HTML renderers do this).

> > e. I don't see any real benefit to it.
> 
> I do, but that's only my personal point of view. 

true enough. I'm a curmudgeoney old b*stard sometimes, who still reads his
mail with a text-mode mailer running directly on the mailserver (as God
clearly intended!).
YMMV; but on the other hand, I don't think there should be a configuraton
option for something as small as this. best to choose the most sensible
default; and have everyone live with it, unless there are a lot of gripes
about the decision. :) (supposedly the KDE people have a philosophy that if
you need a thousand options for everything, it means it's not very
well-built to begin with; and I tend to agree).

Carl Soderstrom.
-- 
Systems Administrator
Real-Time Enterprises
www.real-time.com