> underscored blanks nearly vanished Wouldn't bolding each underscore be a better solution?
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 7:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: New Mainframe Community On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:06:56 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >No, I know of no computer language that treats "smart" quotes as equivalent to >"dumb" quotes. Did not know you were referring to code samples. You meant >smart quotes in code samples in IBM manuals? That is just flat out wrong, >wrong, wrong. It's just as wrong as if they used ENQUEUE rather than ENQ in an >example -- it looks better too. The point of code samples is not to "look >good." > OK. I chiseled a bit. IIRC more precisely, a manual used something like __BPX__SHAREAS rather than _BPX_SHAREAS because the underscored blanks nearly vanished in the proportional font used in the manual. It was a deliberate decision by the writer, not autocorrection by the tool. However nice it appeared in the .pdf it failed when I pasted it into a script. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
