this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
126 points (97.7% liked)

Python

6375 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!

πŸ“… Events

PastNovember 2023

October 2023

July 2023

August 2023

September 2023

🐍 Python project:
πŸ’“ Python Community:
✨ Python Ecosystem:
🌌 Fediverse
Communities
Projects
Feeds

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
126
NumPy 2.0.0 released (github.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious about this. The source text of your comment appears that your comment was just the URL with no markdown. For your comment about a markdown parsing bug to be true, shouldn't the URL have been written in markdown with []() notation (or a space between the URL and the period) since a period is a valid URL character? For example, instead of typing https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html., should [https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html.](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html) have been typed?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Huh. This got me curious.

Yes, I did just type a bare URL. Every mature markdown parser I've used turns this into a link, and appropriately handles trailing punctuation.

So I went to the spec, and it's explicitly called out that this is not an autolink. Autolinks must be explicitly surrounded with angle brackets <>.

So yeah \shrug.

https://spec.commonmark.org/0.31.2/#autolinks

Edit to be clear: This means that both of our markdown parsers are wrong relative to the commonmark spec. But I'll argue that if a parser is going to attempt to autolink this, then handling trailing punctuation is better than not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I did not know about autolinks - thanks for the link!

It is interesting how different parsers handle this exact situation. I usually am cautious about it because I typically am not sure how it will be handled if I am not explicit with the URL and additional text.