[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MH-E manual update

From: Luc Teirlinck
Subject: Re: MH-E manual update
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:35:19 -0600 (CST)

Bill Wohler wrote:

   >     @samp{"\\(<<\\([^\n]+\\)?\\)"}. If this regular expression is not 
   >     correct, the body fragment will not be highlighted with the face
   >     @code{mh-folder-body}.
   > I think this usage is not a very good idea: @samp{foo} is typeset as
   > `foo', so you will have here quotes inside quotes.  I suggest to lose
   > the inner quotes, since they are redundant IMO.

   They aren't redundant since the user actually has to enter the quotes in
   his value. I agree that having quotes inside quotes doesn't look good,
   but it's probably a necessary evil to be technically correct.

Without the double quotes, the doubling up of backslashes is
incorrect, since that only is correct inside Lisp strings.  I looked
at the Elisp manual and the convention seems consistently to be that
if you write a regexp in non-Lisp syntax, you use @samp, but if you
write a regexp in Lisp syntax, you use @code and definitely use the
double quotes.  That will still produce `"...."' in Info, but _not_ in
the printed manual.  (I noticed that I recently violated parts of that
convention myself, but that is corrected now.)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]