Re: @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el}

["Ted Zlatanov" <tzz@lifelogs.com>]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

> [ From gmane.emacs.gnus.commits ... ]
> 
> On Wed, Nov 17 2004, Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> 
>> Modified: ChangeLog gnus.texi
>>
>> replaced @file{spam.el} with @code{spam.el} everywhere for consistency.
> [...]
>> -The idea behind @file{spam.el} is to have a control center for spam detection
>> -and filtering in Gnus.  To that end, @file{spam.el} does two things: it
>> +The idea behind @code{spam.el} is to have a control center for spam detection
>> +and filtering in Gnus.  To that end, @code{spam.el} does two things: it
>>  filters new mail, and it analyzes mail known to be spam or ham.
>> -@dfn{Ham} is the name used throughout @file{spam.el} to indicate
>> +@dfn{Ham} is the name used throughout @code{spam.el} to indicate
>>  non-spam messages.
> 
> I don't understand these changes.  (info "(texinfo)file") says to use
> @file for filenames.  @code is more general.  It is correct that the
> current usage is not consistent.  We have (after your change):
> 
>   67 matches for "@file{[^}]*\.el}" in buffer: gnus.texi
>   43 matches for "@code{[^}]*\.el}" in buffer: gnus.texi
> 
> IMO, we should rather fix those 43 occurances of @code{*.el} instead
> of removing the correctly formated @file{*.el} entries.

There are two issues:

1) I refer to spam.el as a library AND as a file, so some of the
   @code{} markup is correct, I think.

2) I thought there was a problem with the @file{} markup with some
   Texinfo versions, but I may be mis-remembering.

Anyhow, I'll gladly make the change as requested, where the *file*
spam.el is mentioned.  I did not change the places where I refer to
spam.el as a library or as an agent acting on behalf of the user.  Let
me know if that should be changed.

Ted