From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31383 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2004 09:40:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31335 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 09:40:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 09:40:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50067F2983; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22003-01-3; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id 0CC38F2BCC; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:40:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Hilfinger To: eliz@gnu.org Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <9003-Wed09Jun2004204544+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Subject: Re: [RFA]: Turn on Ada support References: <20040608090758.C59CAF2940@nile.gnat.com> <3405-Wed09Jun2004011206+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040609092355.AA07EF2956@nile.gnat.com> <9003-Wed09Jun2004204544+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Message-Id: <20040610094054.0CC38F2BCC@nile.gnat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:00 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 Eli, > > > > +The type of the @t{'Address} attribute may not be @t{System.Address}. > > > > > > I think you should use @code instead of @t in this and similar cases. > > > > Umph. The problem is that @code{'Address} generates `'Address' in Info files, > > which looks odd. > > That's true, but isn't that a problem in all Ada-related > documentation? Not quite sure of your point here. In info files, just plain 'Address, without bracketing quotation marks, seems (to me anyway) to work just fine. It also seems readable in the TeX version (moreso, due to the change in font). Yeah, I know that @code is the right mark to use, semantically speaking, but this seems to be one of those awkward cases where aesthetics conflict with strict correctness. Paul Hilfinger