This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [using gcc book] ch1 objective-c blurb
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Chris Devers wrote:
>
> > > > GCC stands for ``GNU Compiler Collection.'' It is an integrated
> > >
> > > I think the manual should be using logical quoting.
> >
> > ...for example?
>
> I'm referring to putting punctuation inside quotes
Ahh okay, I missed that, thanks for point it out. I'm now doing a search &
edit on all the .texi files for this variation and will correct as needed.
So, terminology
> This usage seems to be used more than the alternative in the manual.
> <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/writing-style.html> discusses the two
> styles.
Well I'd prefer not to go so far as to use "hacker style" everywhere, but
I'm willing to have a policy of <quote><punct> for technical terms
(commands, names of things like GCC, etc), but more conventional usage
like <punct><quote> for everything else.
So, to give the first examples that come up:
Occasionally, a particular tree slot, such as an operand
to an expression, or a particular field in a declaration,
will be referred to as ``reserved for the back end.''
The object referred to is the actual object returned;
this extension is a manual way of doing the
``return-value optimization.''
These seem to be colloquial, so <punct><quote> seems better.
On the other hand, fdl.texi has this paragraph:
In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled
``History'' in the various original documents, forming one
section Entitled ``History''; likewise combine any sections
Entitled ``Acknowledgements'', and any sections Entitled
``Dedications''. You must delete all sections Entitled
``Endorsements.''
Note the inconsistent use here: most of these use <quote><punct> style,
but the last one uses <punct><quote>. The latter appears to be a mistake.
I shouldn't be editing the FDL though, should I?
--
Chris Devers cdevers@pobox.com
http://devers.homeip.net:8080/blog/
upgrade, n. & v. trans. [From up + Latin gradus "steep incline."]
1 n. An expensive counterexample to earlier upward-compatibility
conjectures.
2 n. A painful crisis which belatedly restores one's faith in the
previous system.
3. v. trans. To replace (obsolete stability) with something less boring.
See also APPLE; CONVERSION; OBSOLESCENCE; RIGHTSIZE; SIDEGRADE.
-- from _The Computer Contradictionary_, Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1995