From: Daniel Hartwig <mandyke@gmail.com>
To: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
Cc: guile-devel <guile-devel@gnu.org>, 10522@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#10522: Patch: Improve optional variable and keyword notation in manual
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:58:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN3veRfGq=jGjiuisX5RjusQFmdwc1mGDpuaWbEWrE3WZ=vOtA__43676.9667467617$1362794426$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871ubwg6kf.fsf@pobox.com>
On 3 March 2013 17:45, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sun 03 Mar 2013 02:07, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Can I ask whether it is preferred to use, e.g. @code{#f}, for the
>> default values, as some places seem to and others don't. This patch
>> is not using @code, but then, neither does it touch any doc. that was
>> previously.
>
> Good question. Do you have an opinion?
I suppose that the context of @deffn is somewhat similar to @code, so
the nesting may be considered redundant. However, when I look at
cases where non-atomic expressions are used, such as #:lang in:
-- Scheme Procedure: eval-string string [#:module=#f] [#:file=#f]
[#:line=#f] [#:column=#f] [#:lang=(current-language)]
[#:compile?=#f]
we see that there is some potential confusion between the close,
unescaped (as with @code, ‘’) nesting of the parens/brackets.
Further, usage of ‘=’ like that is not valid Scheme code, so the
contexts are actually more distinct than the ealier supposition.
This leads me to have a _slight_ preference for using @code, as being
more technically correct. Though cases such as the above are in the
minority.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-09 1:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-16 19:46 bug#10522: Patch: Improve optional variable and keyword notation in manual Bake Timmons
2012-02-03 13:28 ` Andy Wingo
[not found] ` <87obtgjbag.fsf@pobox.com>
2012-02-03 23:54 ` Ludovic Courtès
2012-02-04 3:34 ` Ian Price
2012-02-04 13:16 ` Bake Timmons
2013-03-02 19:36 ` Andy Wingo
[not found] ` <876219egqv.fsf@pobox.com>
2013-03-03 1:07 ` Daniel Hartwig
[not found] ` <CAN3veRdEYBkcFAVtNhZ4Jy20rM-MawdqWsU-gFwQtW6-19XwDw@mail.gmail.com>
2013-03-03 9:45 ` Andy Wingo
[not found] ` <871ubwg6kf.fsf@pobox.com>
2013-03-09 1:58 ` Daniel Hartwig [this message]
[not found] ` <CAN3veRfGq=jGjiuisX5RjusQFmdwc1mGDpuaWbEWrE3WZ=vOtA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-03-09 2:03 ` Daniel Hartwig
2013-03-09 8:25 ` Andy Wingo
[not found] ` <871ubp56a6.fsf@pobox.com>
2013-03-10 0:10 ` Daniel Hartwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAN3veRfGq=jGjiuisX5RjusQFmdwc1mGDpuaWbEWrE3WZ=vOtA__43676.9667467617$1362794426$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mandyke@gmail.com \
--cc=10522@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=wingo@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).