# Difficult on understanding Laziness

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/difficult-on-understanding-laziness/2484>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [June 16, 2017, 7:36am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/difficult-on-understanding-laziness/2484 "2017-06-16T07:36:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![skatpgusskat](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/skatpgusskat/32/1160_2.png) [@skatpgusskat](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/skatpgusskat)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 1:41pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/difficult-on-understanding-laziness/2484/3 "2017-06-16T13:41:18Z")

</div>

I found relative topic, [Spec section 5.1: Ref-impl bug and/or unclear spec?](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/spec-section-5-1-ref-impl-bug-and-or-unclear-spec/1974/5)

But I couldn’t find acceptable reason for using Laziness rule. I mean, I feel this rule is strange, not clear, unintelligible… but only for laziness of writer? omg…

That laziness, anyway, only works for a paragraph, that mean, on the other blocks, it always needs a front block quote marker.  
Too much complexity for little convenience, isn’t it?  
And this mean that writer’s experiences of Block Quote are different between paragraph and other block types. I think unified experience is very important for editing.

So, I totally disagree with this rule, but really I want to know about other perspectives.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/difficult-on-understanding-laziness/2484)._