On Tuesday 17 February 2009 22:28:13 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:08:37 +0300
> > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> >  gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
> >  nickrob@snap.net.nz
> > 
> > On Sunday 01 February 2009 21:29:18 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 08:22:28PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > That'd be okay as well, although I don't really understand why it is
> > > > better than my suggestion.
> > > 
> > > It's not a big difference; I find it more natural to have the output
> > > all grouped together and looking similar to GDB's expected output.
> > 
> > I'd prefer this approach to, because that's how the rest of MI docs do it.
> 
> Do we have such long @item's elsewhere in the MI docs?  I made a quick
> scan and didn't find any, but perhaps I missed something.

I don't think we do -- most other long examples are inside @smallexample

> > But -- who to I force a break inside @item ?
> 
> You can't, AFAIK.  

Ouch.

> Maybe you could use @itemx for all lines but the 
> first one, but that would be a kludge.

Well, worse. texinfo would render both quoted in '', so it will no longer
look anyway like MI output. Seems like we can directly list all fields
in @item. How about the attached, instead?

> P.S. Please in the future show the original code/Texinfo that prompted
> the response above: that was 2 and a half weeks ago, and I no longer
> remembered what was this about, nor had the original message in my
> mailbox.  I had to go to the archives to know what we were talking
> about.

Sorry, will quote texinfo in future.

- Volodya