Re: RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-06-13T18:35:31Z

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:21:37PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > +@table @samp
> > +@item @var{stubfeature} @r{[};@var{stubfeature}@r{]}@dots{}
> > +The stub supports or does not support each returned @var{stubfeature},
> > +depending on the form of each @var{stubfeature} (see below for the
> > +possible forms).
> > +@item
> > +An empty reply indicates that @samp{qSupported} is not recognized,
> > +or that no features needed to be reported to @value{GDBN}.
>
> Did you look at how this empty @item is typeset in the printed version
> of the manual? I suspect it won't do what you want. Perhaps saying
> "(@emph{empty})" explicitly will look better.

Hmm. We already use a bare @item in several places, so I didn't think
to check. It comes out as `' in the appropriate font; do you think
that's OK?

Otherwise, the (empty) appears inside the quote marks and in @samp.
I actually think best would be "@samp{} (empty)", but I don't know how
to do that without removing the @samp from the @table and adding it to
the other reply explicitly.