* @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el} [not found] <E1CUWH0-00047a-00@quimby.gnus.org> @ 2004-12-02 21:10 ` Reiner Steib 2004-12-03 8:25 ` Steve Youngs 2004-12-07 19:08 ` Ted Zlatanov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Reiner Steib @ 2004-12-02 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw) [ 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el} 2004-12-02 21:10 ` @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el} Reiner Steib @ 2004-12-03 8:25 ` Steve Youngs 2004-12-07 19:08 ` Ted Zlatanov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Steve Youngs @ 2004-12-03 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el} 2004-12-02 21:10 ` @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el} Reiner Steib 2004-12-03 8:25 ` Steve Youngs @ 2004-12-07 19:08 ` Ted Zlatanov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Ted Zlatanov @ 2004-12-07 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-12-07 19:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <E1CUWH0-00047a-00@quimby.gnus.org> 2004-12-02 21:10 ` @code{spam.el} vs. @file{spam.el} Reiner Steib 2004-12-03 8:25 ` Steve Youngs 2004-12-07 19:08 ` Ted Zlatanov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).