add the new BB-codes in the function unbbcode and a few further changes

[auge8472]

No description provided.

[auge8472]

@bttrx proposed (via e-mail) to use a shorter code for inline code. He proposed icode [edit] instead the inlinecode from my commit [/edit]. For better recognisability I want to propose ilcode instead.

[bttrx]

Umm. I understand ilcode can recognized better, but still don't like it.

Maybe just call it mono for monospaced font?

[auge8472]

Maybe just call it mono for monospaced font?

I disagree. The BB-code is intended for example (source) code and not for "only" monospaced text in itself. One may use it for monospaced text in reality but it's not the intended use.

ilcode can [get] recognized better, but still don't like it.

Why you don't like it? I see the problem, that the self explanatory inlinecode is long. It's good for readability but it's bad in relation to the limitation of the posting length and in relation to more hand writing of BB-codes (without (the use of) a BB-code-button). Your proposed icode (and also my ilcode) is shorter. Even icode is far from unreadable, ilcode is IMHO better readable than icode.

Is there more than the subjective argument "I don't like it"?

[bttrx]

I expected that reaction from you. ;-)

Yes, inlinecode is (too) long.
Yes, ilcode is better to read than icode.
I think, I don't like ilcode, because it shall stand for "inline code", but not for "il(whatever) code". It feels "unnatural" to me. Maybe you call me picky and that's fine for me.
Why did you not mention incode?

Would there be a technical solution to only use code for inline and block and let the forum decide, how to render?

If code is preceded by whitespace only, i.e., it's not inline, than render it as <pre><code>. Otherwise render only to <code>.

[auge8472]

I think, I don't like ilcode, because it shall stand for "inline code", but not for "il(whatever) code".

Hmm, is there any "il(whatever)code"? I don't think so. There are code examples inside text segments or in blocks.

It feels "unnatural" to me.

I see your point.

Why did you not mention incode?

Because that feels unnatural to me.

Would there be a technical solution to only use code for inline and block and let the forum decide, how to render?

I don't see one but in general I would prefer that way. Like you describe:

If code is preceded by whitespace only, i.e., it's not inline, than render it as <pre><code>. Otherwise render only to <code>.

I know this solution when generating Markdown (inline code versus code block) with a button in the editor field. But also in this case it's done at the side of the content creation and also there we can see a distinction between inline code and code blocks. 🤔

Further opinions? @Helmut01?

[Helmut01]

No preferences. I agree that inlinecode like in mlf2 is long. I guess (!) most users have JavaScript activated. Why not keep inlinecode but offer a button to insert it? Maybe one called block code and a second one inline code.
Right now we have just 5 buttons (bold, italic, link, image, upload). In mlf2 we have 10. In my forum I have 15 (given, my textarea has a larger height of 30 lines).

[bttrx]

Why not keep inlinecode but offer a button to insert it? Maybe one called block code and a second one inline code.

I would be fine with that.