Riley Bruins

I see. I will reopen this then, and if anyone has an argument against then they can shut it down.

@mawkler As a workaround, I use something like this: ```scheme ((task_list_marker_unchecked) @text.todo.unchecked (#offset! @text.todo.unchecked 0 -2 0 0) (#set! conceal "✗")) ; ((task_list_marker_checked) @text.todo.checked (#offset! @text.todo.checked 0 -2 0 0)...

Should this be implemented in the form of another directive (perhaps `#offset-each!`)? That way it would still be possible to, in the future, do something like the following: Say for...

Ah, I see

Since the markdown parser is bundled could we use Tree-sitter for this? The downside is that maybe the grammar changes (affecting the node names) but it seems like this could...

Ah weird. Maybe instead of `{ignore_injections = false}` it should be `{lang = 'markdown_inline'}`? Either way feel free to disregard if it ends up just making things more complicated :laughing:

@lewis6991 No real reason if it is easy enough to parse manually; that said I do think the code looks a bit simpler (and using the parser would handle cases...

Also the inline parser is pretty flat so traversing up nodes like that (only needed when there is e.g. an emphasis node inside the link text node) won't be too...

Oh nice! Yeah great point that is better I think. Also I could be wrong but I think that `ignore_injections = false` is superfluous if we specify `lang = 'markdown_inline'`?...

Ah I see; but couldn't it be the case that there happens to be some language using some weird `[...](...)` syntax that will still affect the current version?