On 12/13/18 12:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > As we discussed, the manual isn't completely consistent in its > use of @code for const and volatile qualifiers. I made a pass > through extend.texi and added @code wherever it seemed to be > missing. This doesn't mean all uses but only those that > specifically refer to the qualifiers. In terms like "const > function" or "volatile object" the terms "const" and "volatile" > do not specifically refer to the qualifiers and so they don't > get the @code. AFAICS, this is in line with existing usage in > the manual and also in the C and C++ standard (though none is > 100% consistent). > > While doing this, I also noticed similar inconsistencies in > the quoting of the values true and false, and in references > to the asm statement. There too the manual tends to use @code > more often than not, so I made similar changes there. Here > too I've left unchanged uses of the ordinary English words > true or false. > > I made no other changes here so the churn is only the result > of maintaining the 80 characters per line limit. > > If we're happy with this as the general rule of thumb to use > in these cases I'll propose an update to the Coding Guidelines > to capture it. > > Martin > > gcc-doc-extend-cvqual-code.diff > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > * doc/extend.texi: Consistemtly use @code for const and volatile > qualifiers and asm statements. OK. And definitely add it to the guidelines. It's easily missed when making changes as well as during reviews.
jeff