On 5 October 2015 at 22:12, Patrice Dumas <[email protected]> wrote: > Inline commands are more natural and were indeed added for that kind of > cases. But prior from inline commands, the only way to add inline raw > text was with the block commands such as @html, and to leave the > possibility to have a space or not after the block, to allow for a sort > of inline command, the end of line at the end of the raw block was > removed. Since it was not possible to do that with TeX, it was only > done with makeinfo. I think that this feature was used by manuals to > workaround the lack of inline commands at that time. (The end of line > before the block was never removed.) > > I think that not removing the last end of line of raw blocks would > probably be better, but some manuals may expect the end of line to be > removed. So, there is an issue of backward compatibility here.
Do you think there would be many cases where a raw formatting command like @html was used without there also being raw formatting commands for other output formats next to it, like the example in the email: > >> @html > >> bar > >> @end html > >> @tex > >> bar > >> @end tex > >> baz The newline at the end of the @tex block is kept, there's no argument about this, and in contexts like these, if a word can't run across the end of one block, you'd expect it not to run across the other block either. I struggle to come up with examples, can you remember any from manuals that did this which don't need the newline? The best I can think of at the moment is changes to formatting mid-word.
