[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#40951: Weird highlighting
From: |
Lars Ingebrigtsen |
Subject: |
bug#40951: Weird highlighting |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Aug 2020 13:19:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Kévin Le Gouguec <kevin.legouguec@gmail.com> writes:
> That only covers Gnus's "writes:" though. Spelunking in lisp/gnus for
> other verbs featured in gnus-cite-attribution-suffix, I get the
> impression that other MUAs tend to follow suit, but that might be
> wishful thinking.
Yeah, the "says:" stuff can be anything, really.
> Assuming false negatives (failing to highlight) on articles from
> "non-conforming" MUAs are less annoying than false positives
> (highlighting part of a line that's not introducing a citation) on
> "conforming" ones, I'm still not sure where the right "fix" would
> belong.
Both are pretty annoying, but I don't think there's realistically any
way to fix this to be better than it is. Some AI analysis would be
handy. :-)
So I'm closing this bug report.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- bug#40951: Weird highlighting,
Lars Ingebrigtsen <=