[using gcc book] ch1 objective-c blurb

[Chris Devers]

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