From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23244-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7175 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2005 06:54:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 7167 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2005 06:54:05 -0000
Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:54:05 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-53-80.inter.net.il [80.230.53.80])
	by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.6.5-GR)
	with ESMTP id BYO42869 (AUTH halo1);
	Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:53:53 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:54:00 -0000
Message-Id: <uoe4l6q2m.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <8f2776cb0511152147i4c24e43aue46a54332fd4c0f3@mail.gmail.com>
	(message from Jim Blandy on Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:47:37 -0800)
Subject: Re: Formatting of packet descriptions in GDB manual
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <8f2776cb0511111624h4d646cd9i1f86824c5edc613f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ubr0q2vl9.fsf@gnu.org>
	 <8f2776cb0511120047y50b3a273pe17ddd5c53342be1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <u4q6h32bk.fsf@gnu.org> <20051113171247.GA1945@nevyn.them.org>
	 <ur79ki4h7.fsf@gnu.org> <20051114022955.GA10567@nevyn.them.org>
	 <uoe4nj1ih.fsf@gnu.org> <20051114134924.GB21373@nevyn.them.org>
	 <8f2776cb0511152147i4c24e43aue46a54332fd4c0f3@mail.gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00314.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:47:37 -0800
> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
> 
> Now that we've eliminated the brief summaries from the packets' @item
> lines, I'd like to suggest using @samp for packet contents, instead of
> @code.  I think this is more consistent with their general use in
> Texinfo, and it looks okay in print and on-line.  But it's arguable;
> what do folks think?  Aesthetically, I appreciate having the quotes
> around the packet contents  when they're mixed in with the text.

@code and @samp produce identical results in the Info manual.  In
print and in PDF, @samp uses the same typeface as @code, but it also
encloses the text in single parens.

> Use the `@samp' command to indicate text that is a literal example or
> `sample' of a sequence of characters in a file, string, pattern, etc.

For this reason, it's probably a good idea to use @samp.