Date:	Thu, 06 Feb 2003 21:29:26 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
Message-Id:	<3028-Thu06Feb2003212925+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<20030206172150.GA25984@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT
	Williams on Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:21:50 -0600)
Subject:	Re: Texinfo markup recommendations in KB/develop.txi
References:	<20030206172150 DOT GA25984 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:21:50 -0600
> From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
> 
> I was looking through develop.txi in the KB for some guidance on the
> markup for writing command syntax.  I'm still not sure about the markup
> for grouped options and accumulating options (e.g., verbosity).
> 
> Something like this?
> 
> @command{foo} [@kbd{-?hV}]
> @command{foo} [@kbd{-v}@dots{}] @kbd{-f} @var{input-file}

No, this will look ugly in the printed version.  I think we should
either use @kbd for the whole command line (since it's something the
user should type), or put it in @example and _not_ use @kbd.

> PS: This patch might be in order.
> 
> --- develop.old 2003-01-28 03:15:11.000000000 -0600
> +++ develop.txi 2003-02-06 11:10:19.535463000 -0600
> @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@
>  @samp{@@option@{@}} mark-up.  @samp{@@option@{@}} is new in Texinfo 4.0.
>  
>  @item
> -Names of programs should use @samp{@@code@{@}} (unless program's name
> +Names of programs should use @samp{@@command@{@}} (unless program's name
>  has become a proper name, like GCC or GDB).

Yes, please install this.

- Raw text -