Eric Blake <ebb9 <at> byu.net> writes:
>
> So here's my proposed patch, which went with @{:@ and @:}@ for ( and ),
written
> prior to reading your suggestion. Apart from the final spelling, does this
> patch look sufficient? Any other votes for the preferred spelling?
Plus this NEWS entry (again, with corrected spelling if desired):
** Two new quadrigraphs have been introduced: @{:@ for (, and @:}@ for ),
allowing the output of unbalanced parantheses in contexts such as
AS_HELP_STRING or AT_SETUP that must determine the length of
expanded text.
--
Eric Blake
