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

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

[Reiner Steib]

[ 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.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

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

[Steve Youngs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

* Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

  >   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.

Agree.

-- 
|---<Steve Youngs>---------------<GnuPG KeyID: A94B3003>---|
|                   Te audire no possum.                   |
|             Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.             |
|----------------------------------<steve@youngs.au.com>---|

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

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

[Ted Zlatanov]

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