I've worked out why ligation was being (correctly) suppressed in code
authorben <ben@cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e>
Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:05:28 +0000 (16:05 +0000)
committerben <ben@cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e>
Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:05:28 +0000 (16:05 +0000)
paragraphs and found some cases where it isn't.  Add test cases for these
to remind me to deal with them later.

git-svn-id: svn://svn.tartarus.org/sgt/halibut@7060 cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e

inputs/test.but

index 72f8719..04ac8e6 100644 (file)
@@ -244,6 +244,13 @@ u 
 
 \cfg{input-charset}{ASCII}
 
+Testing ligatures in normal (fi), empasised (\e{fi}), code (\c{fi}) and
+weak code (\cw{fi}).  The latter two should not be ligated.
+
+\c Also in a code paragraph (fi) with bold (fi) and italic (fi).
+\e                                          bb              ii
+\c There should be no ligation there.
+
 \S{subhead} First subheading
 
 So here's a \I{subheading}\I{subsection}subsection. Just