No, I know of no computer language that treats "smart" quotes as equivalent to "dumb" quotes. Did not know you were referring to code samples. You meant smart quotes in code samples in IBM manuals? That is just flat out wrong, wrong, wrong. It's just as wrong as if they used ENQUEUE rather than ENQ in an example -- it looks better too. The point of code samples is not to "look good."
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 3:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: New Mainframe Community On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:33:36 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >+1 on redundant replies. > >> wish is that the WWW interface supported composing in a >> monospaced font > >What's the difference? It shows up for the recipient in whatever font they >choose, typically monospaced. > But I'm the composer. LISTSERV WWW has no monospace option. I'd like to see vertical alignment in code samples that I type or paste. >> that submitters turn off "smart" quotes > >Why? Because "pure" ASCII is ordained somewhere? Should they turn off their >Hebrew or Chinese names too? Unicode rulz, dude! Readability rulz! I agree -- >it looks better that way. "Dumb" quotes are an artifact of typewriters and 6- >or 7-bit character sets. Real type has used "smart" quotes for centuries. > For code samples. Do compilers nowadays understand "smart" quotes? HLASM, for one, doesn't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
