From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0B883858D38 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:04:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A0B883858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A0B883858D38 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712941484; cv=none; b=p7uw+XaZv8sOihtS3SA7ixG2ZBf6JcCAbqK0Q5FBTZnBSuu3TWbmkVnriEs95SrDCXDiFQuTU2Sx9dga+QYtmWH3NOwn/+DtNNVfbPY0/w09MU/T5QneVF6epDCnbmtIxT0MzBpjPgNZuGfYhCBXFxmYNbkta/HlVZ0nMeQWnJo= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1712941484; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XEV76ZGOV0oPLGheeKRSJe1rAs63Z5IRUa4dcAJl2SA=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=waSYtQxGuHt0VUQg9J6JFdTAfZrflU4s01lCfWO/tXDT4v+o8gIOdOMXFbANY5DqwbvjDkTyVFfbw6GDeCQ6J42TPIObszZ2TkRxPBKLBIRY0eNVXEFVfT95+CKrfnEKLLndHgj0Ep57aaAUTFtyYvUPgOah5H8g/e7Sj7uCu8o= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1712941482; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=R5mEF+EYRKGleDq+QVYw9tX6+CLmTL8h7zOLqjnhApc=; b=VBy9dSRq0aQTa4a1qJSAr7JWNcWBJGhB2lp4mwvTK+siN7tKQE1DHQXng/67el6gWSb/qK ViFYhn+roP4bpQLXf/FXzJymGyX65ORy5Fkdo2mbmu/r0yjA64i7DR5U/KXetU1KcuahgZ xtom4H8BAf4LmXCtKxpedD9+po685AU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-324-mdMkznnUMhGEAVSNiQ7pzw-1; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:04:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: mdMkznnUMhGEAVSNiQ7pzw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD2D529AB3F3; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f39-zbm-amd (unknown [10.22.10.134]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56DC22166B36; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:04:37 -0700 From: Kevin Buettner To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH] Normalize "on|off" text in manual Message-ID: <20240412100437.74769227@f39-zbm-amd> In-Reply-To: <8634s7c7vn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20240330185401.1735449-1-tom@tromey.com> <8634s7c7vn.fsf@gnu.org> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:01:16 +0300 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Tom Tromey > > Cc: Tom Tromey > > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:54:01 -0600 > >=20 > > While looking in the info manual, I noticed this: > >=20 > > =E2=80=98set style enabled =E2=80=98on|off=E2=80=99=E2=80=99 > >=20 > > The styling looked weird here and in the source I saw it was written as= : > >=20 > > @item set style enabled @samp{on|off} > >=20 > > I looked through the rest of the manual and found this same sort of > > thing was written in a variety of styles. > >=20 > > For this patch, I picked one way to write this and applied it to all > > the instances. =20 >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > I agree that we should be consistent. While using @r{..} for the > brackets and "|" is probably rigorously correct, I think it is too > much bother, and thus is likely not to be followed by many patches. I > wonder whether we could use the simpler way: leave them alone, which > will cause the entire "set style enabled on|off" have the @code > markup, due to "@table @code". This will be easier to follow and > easier to enforce. What do people think? So long as the result in the manual looks okay, I'm in favor of simplicity. Kevin