10 replies to this topic

[flyingfisch]

The [codebox ] function does not treat all the text within it as code like the [code ] tag does.

Example:

this code should not be italicized

but it is [i]this code should not be italicizedbut it is <img src='/dot/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />  << and that should not be an image.

[2072]

I'm not sure that's a bug, the CODEBOX tag allows you to put things in a "code" styled container while the CODE tag actually treats its content as code.

[Forty-Two]

I'm not sure that's a bug, the CODEBOX tag allows you to put things in a "code" styled container while the CODE tag actually treats its content as code.

The point of a codebox is so that stuff gets rendered as monospace, and without smilies. (Code highlighting is also a nice feature)

[flyingfisch]

If we could have code highlighting, that would be great ( [code lang = 'blah'] )

[2072]

The point of a codebox is so that stuff gets rendered as monospace, and without smilies. (Code highlighting is also a nice feature)

The CODE tag is here for that.

[MicroPro]

But CODE can make really really loooong posts, while CODEBOX can be safely used to paste a big amount of code (or any other text) so its presence is vital.

Do you know if the new forum version have syntax highlighting?

[flyingfisch]

Syntax highlighting would not come with the forum software, its a plugin...

[Forty-Two]

I never really noticed the difference until now, but I must agree that the only difference should be scrolling. The compaction is very important for lengthy sections.

[flyingfisch]

[ codebox ] works now

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aa

aa
a
a
a
a
a
[i] 

but it doesn't scroll.

I think we need a CSS max-height attribute somewhere.

[Forty-Two]

/me tests his signature

It's double-spaced

[flyingfisch]

In the ACP, I found that codebox is just an alias for code.

We can maybe change the settings and give it a max-height of, say, 250px and overflow auto.


EDIT:
Done.