Re: RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:45:16PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:35:26 -0400
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > 
> > > 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?
> 
> It's not bad, but the following might be better:
> 
>   @item  @r{(empty)}

That seems to give me @samp{@r{(empty)}}, which comes out as `(empty)'
with the apostrophes in @samp and the (empty) in @r.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery