I went ahead and tried to reproduce the article's observations.
> when you do `foo()` it foos the bar.
I typed this exact sequence of characters in the new editor and it formatted exactly as one would expect.
> when you do bar.`foo()` it foos the bar
I was indeed able to reproduce this, and worse: if you put the cursor after the f, delete it, and type f again, the new f will happen before the backticks. One can tell this is about to happen by observing the cursor; even though the cursor is over the little box, it's black (as in for normal text) instead of red/salmon/whatever-that-color-is (as in for code).
That said, one can work around this by selecting all the text to be backtick'd and clicking the </> button (or pressing Ctrl-Shift-C); annoying, but slightly less annoying than having to retype things.
> when you do `foo()` it foos the bar.
I typed this exact sequence of characters in the new editor and it formatted exactly as one would expect.
> when you do bar.`foo()` it foos the bar
I was indeed able to reproduce this, and worse: if you put the cursor after the f, delete it, and type f again, the new f will happen before the backticks. One can tell this is about to happen by observing the cursor; even though the cursor is over the little box, it's black (as in for normal text) instead of red/salmon/whatever-that-color-is (as in for code).
That said, one can work around this by selecting all the text to be backtick'd and clicking the </> button (or pressing Ctrl-Shift-C); annoying, but slightly less annoying than having to retype things.