Indented code blocks don't work after lists

[jasonb-vbt]

If an indented code block follows a bulleted list or numbered list, the code block is rendered as a normal text paragraph. If a normal text paragraph comes between the list and the code block, then the code block comes out fine.

Source:

1. one
2. two
3. three

    There is no normal text
    between the preceding numbered
    list and this code block

1. one
2. two
3. three

This is a normal paragraph

    and hey presto,
    the code block works!

Result:

Note: for what it's worth, fenced code blocks do not seem to have this problem. Unfortunately, for other reasons I can't just switch code block styles.

[jmanuel1]

Try indenting 4 spaces from from the space after the list marker. Like this:

1. one
2. two
3. three

       There is no normal text
       between the preceding numbered
       list and this code block

1. one
2. two
3. three

This is a normal paragraph

    and hey presto,
    the code block works!

This works on both dev and master. And if I read the CommonMark Spec correctly, this is correct behavior.

[jasonb-vbt]

Ah, I see what you're saying, and thanks for the comment.

What I'm reporting, though, is not an attempt to get a code block that's structurally part of list item 3, but rather an independent code block that just happens to come after a list. What I mean is that if you're looking to get this structure as a result:

<ol>
<li> blah </li>
<li> blah </li>
<li> blah </li>
</ol>
<code>...</code>

Then the code block ought to be indented 4 spaces as normal. That's what doesn't work.

Edit: After looking more at the CommonMark Spec's sections on indented code blocks, I remain convinced that the particular example I gave earlier should work, and don't fall under the ambiguity resolution clauses shown in examples 66 and 67 of the spec. Example 66 has ambiguity because of an enclosing indented list. Example 67 has ambiguity because the contents of the code block themselves look like a list item. My example has neither, and as such I would definitely argue it's unambiguous, so the indented block should be treated as code that also closes the preceding list.