[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 26b56dc: Fix some single quotes in documentat

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-25 26b56dc: Fix some single quotes in documentation
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:55:47 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

On 03/15/2016 05:52 PM, Drew Adams wrote:
Were identical straight quotes (') used in NEWS before you used them? I don't think so. Except maybe for the occasional typo.

They were used, and they weren't typos. Straight quoting is an alternative style of quoting, which is valid in its own right.

Although grave quotes are popular Emacs source code they have
never been the only style for all text,
In Emacs they have been.  Counter-examples?  Or did you mean all
text anywhere, including outside of Emacs?

I meant within the text files in the Emacs git repository. Although grave quoting (with ` and ') has historically been more popular than straight quoting (with ' and '), both forms are used, and straight quotes are not merely something that I just now added. In particular, both quoting styles were used in etc/NEWS even before my changes of this week. Last week's commit 985dacfa0f0186531fdae13718d720cf7e27425f of etc/NEWS contains at least a dozen uses of straight quoting (I got tired of counting after reaching a dozen). Admittedly straight quoting was a minority style, but these were not typos.

>> for example, the NEWS entry for Emacs 1.4 (in etc/NEWS.1-17), circa
>> 1985, uses straight quotes for its only quoted string, presumably to
>> distinguish the quotes from the grave accents elsewhere in the entry.
> ... Dunno what you mean by "its only quoted string",

I meant the only quoted string in the NEWS entry for Emacs 1.4. There is just one such string, which you numbered "5" in your list. (Your list included NEWS entries for other Emacs releases.) Again, I concede that straight quoting was a minority style in NEWS entries, but it was a perfectly respectable style and it was not just "typos".

You think they are a better choice; OK, we got that.

It's not a matter of my personal preference. It's the GNU coding style, which reflects a reasonable consensus on user-visible text.

reply via email to

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