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

[Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>]

[ 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/