Regression on intraword_underscores in 1.12.3?

[ericshade]

If I run pandoc on a file just containing

_foot_ball_

then converting to HTML I get

<p><em>foot</em>ball_</p>

when I believe I should get

<p><em>foot_ball</em></p>

I know that I could use outer asterisks (and that's my workaround), but I'm fairly certain that it used to work correctly with underscores, and the documentation implies that it should.

[jgm]

Yes, I recall simplifying the code for efficiency, thinking
that it would be sufficient just to check the opening delimiter.
I was thinking of standard cases like foo_bar_baz; I didn't
think of the case where someone would put something like that
under underline emphasis.

Probably worth fixing.

+++ ericshade [Jan 21 14 13:50 ]:

If I run pandoc on a file just containing
foot_ball

then converting to HTML I get

football_

when I believe I should get

foot_ball

I know that I could use outer asterisks (and that's my workaround), but
I'm fairly certain that it used to work correctly with underscores, and
the documentation implies that it should.

—
Reply to this email directly or [1]view it on GitHub.
[3044__eyJzY29wZSI6Ik5ld3NpZXM6QmVhY29uIiwiZXhwaXJlcyI6MTcwNTg3MzgwNCwi
ZGF0YSI6eyJpZCI6MjM5NzgzMDF9fQ==--68c4354b25b9c7c38cda2328d21902e3723d6
344.gif]

References

1. Regression on intraword_underscores in 1.12.3? #1121