From: ben <ben@cda61777-01e9-0310-a592-d414129be87e>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:05:28 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: I've worked out why ligation was being (correctly) suppressed in code
X-Git-Url: https://git.distorted.org.uk/~mdw/sgt/halibut/commitdiff_plain/d7c6988bbce93c385d92a56da595429da59fcced

I've worked out why ligation was being (correctly) suppressed in code
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
---

diff --git a/inputs/test.but b/inputs/test.but
index 72f8719..04ac8e6 100644
--- a/inputs/test.but
+++ b/inputs/test.but
@@ -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