Problem with UL followed by OL

[Tomas Doran]

On 23 Jan 2008, at 21:14, Kazutaka Matsuda wrote:


> I got a problem with UL followed by by OL

>  when I using perl module "Text-Markdown-1.0.5".

>

> I wrote the following markdown code.

> - a

> - b

>

> 1. 1

> 2. 2

> I expected that Text-Markdown would produce the following HTML.

> <ul>

> <li>a</li>

> <li>b</li>

> </ul>

> <ol>

> <li>1</li>

> <li>2</li>

> </ol>

> However, "Text-Markdown-1.0.5" generated the following HTML.

> <ul>

> <li>a</li>

> <li><p>b</p></li>

> <li><p>1</p></li>

> <li>2</li>

> </ul>

> At least for me, this is not intuitive.


yes, it's a bug :)


>

> I attached a patch for "Markdown.pm" in "Text-Markdown-1.0.5".

> And, I also attached a simple test for the above.


Awesome!


> I checked that patched "Text-Markdown" returns the same result as I  

> expected.


Yep, it appears to work in simple cases, but unfortunately when I  
patch it to Text::MultiMarkdown (which has a reasonably comprehensive  
test suite) then it makes it crap itself:

t/20fulldocs-multimarkdown..................6/33
#   Failed test 'Docs test: Lists'
#   at t/20fulldocs-multimarkdown.t line 25.
t/20fulldocs-multimarkdown..................23/33 perl(4289) malloc:  
***  Deallocation of a pointer not malloced: 0x118af10; This could be  
a double free(), or free() called with the middle of an allocated  
block; Try setting environment variable MallocHelp to see tools to  
help debug
perl(4289) malloc: ***  Deallocation of a pointer not malloced:  
0x18dd400; This could be a double free(), or free() called with the  
middle of an allocated block; Try setting environment variable  
MallocHelp to see tools to help debug
perl(4289) malloc: ***  Deallocation of a pointer not malloced:  
0x1189cd0; This could be a double free(), or free() called with the  
middle of an allocated block; Try setting environment variable  
MallocHelp to see tools to help debug

Which is real helpful. Thank you perl...

So I'm going to see what I can work out / which part is causing that  
(I assume the backref in the regex)....

I'll get back to you as soon as I've got it sorted / when I have news :)

Please feel free to poke me off list about this!

Cheers
Tom