Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] doc: git-config: escape erroneous highlight markup

[Tuomas Ahola <taahol@utu.fi>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Tuomas Ahola wrote:
> 
> > > >  If _<message>_ begins with one or more whitespaces followed
> > > > -by "#", it is used as-is.  If it begins with "#", a space is
> > > > +by "\#", it is used as-is.  If it begins with "\#", a space is
> > > >  prepended before it is used.  Otherwise, a string " # " (a
> > > >  space followed by a hash followed by a space) is prepended
> > > 
> > > I saw the comment on round 1 about this second "#" on the line. But
> > > while we are here, should we be doing the one in the context, too?
> > > 
> > > -Peff
> > 
> > It seems adding that second backslash was already too much, as doc-diff (which
> > I neglected to run before submitting V2) shows:
> > 
> > ```
> > $ ./doc-diff V1 V2
> >  
> >             If <message> begins with one or more whitespaces followed by "#",
> > -           it is used as-is. If it begins with "#", a space is prepended
> > +           it is used as-is. If it begins with "\#", a space is prepended
> >             before it is used. Otherwise, a string " # " (a space followed by a
> >             hash followed by a space) is prepended to it. The resulting string
> >             is placed immediately after the value defined for the variable. The
> > ```
> 
> Heh, it would not be the first time I am baffled by asciidoc's parsing. :)
> 
> Adding a backslash to the third instance "fixes" the second one to me,
> but I wouldn't want to rely on that (plus it breaks the third instance).
> 
> Using backticks does work, though it always opens a typographical
> question. When reading the source, you see `#`, so you get a punctuation
> delimiter but no typographical one. In the rendered output, you'll see
> it in a typewriter font (assuming we fix the config issue), but we'd
> lose the visible punctuation. I could live with that.
> 
> But for " # ", it gets weirder. We need punctuation to call out the
> spaces, but what should happen to the quotes? They are not really part
> of the literal string, so should they go inside or outside the
> backticks? I think it may be a moot point as "` # `" is not parsed as
> you might hope by asciidoc. Doing `" # "` does work, and is probably OK
> enough here.
> 
> -Peff

Okay, I'll change those to `#` and `" # "`.  That seems to be the best,
or the least bad option right now. :-)

--Tuomas