Mark Polesky <markpole...@yahoo.com> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> While a rationale is strictly not necessary in a bunch of
>> instructions, it will do wonders for morale and
>> acceptance.
>
> David,
> I guess I didn't think morale was an issue here... Anyway,
> would you prefer this change to be made?
I would not mention monospace. It might make people fiddle with
monospace font instructions, defeating consistency.
> @item
> @code{@@v...@{@dot...@}} --- Use for metasyntactic variables (such
> as @co...@var{foo}}, @co...@var{bar}}, @co...@var{arg1}}, etc.).
> -When referring to variables in the text, use
> +In the PDF and HTML output, variables should appear in a monospace
> +font (to indicate that they are elements of program code). So
> +when referring to variables in the text, use
When such variables stand for actual code variables instead of abtract
concepts, you should write @code{@@c...@{@@v...@{@dot...@}@}} in text
passages in order to have the formatting in all backends agree with the
use of those variables in code passages, like @code{@@s...@{@dot...@}}
or @code{@@example}.
> @code{@@c...@{@@v...@{@dot...@}@}}, unless the
> @code{@@v...@{@dot...@}} is already within another fixed-width
> -command such as @code{@@s...@{@dot...@}}.
> +command such as @code{@@s...@{@dot...@}} or @code{@@example}.
I would not spell out the details like "monospace" or fixed-width: those
may change over time.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
