From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-137700-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 73192 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2017 18:22:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 73169 invoked by uid 89); 20 Mar 2017 18:22:23 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1051, U*tim.wiederhake, wiederhake, timwiederhakeintelcom
X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org
Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:22:22 +0000
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1cq1we-000537-VJ	for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:22:21 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37576)	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1cq1we-00052Y-Rk; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:22:16 -0400
Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1166 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)	(Exim 4.82)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1cq1wd-00062J-Tn; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:22:16 -0400
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:22:00 -0000
Message-Id: <83mvcfx0za.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
CC: tim.wiederhake@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to:	<CAH=s-PMYaTJ3CdYSiNODsdD-i6GMcRf6ogv5hWuAf5H4sWNe4g@mail.gmail.com>	(message from Yao Qi on Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:36:42 +0000)
Subject: Re: Python 3 vs. @code{Python} 3 in python.texi
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <CAH=s-PMYaTJ3CdYSiNODsdD-i6GMcRf6ogv5hWuAf5H4sWNe4g@mail.gmail.com>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2

> From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:36:42 +0000
> Cc: Tim Wiederhake <tim.wiederhake@intel.com>, 
> 	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> 
> Hi Eli,
> Which one do we use in sentence "In XXX, the return
> value is a @code{memoryview} object.", "Python 3" or
> "@code{Python} 3"?
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-03/msg00039.html
> 
> We use "@code{Python} 3" for Inferior.read_memory,
> ....
> @code{Inferior.write_memory} function.  In @code{Python} 3, the return
> value is a @code{memoryview} object.
> 
> so I suggested that we need to use "@code{Python} 3" for
> consistency, but Tim believes "Python 3" should be used,
> because "@code{python} is used when the actual "python" command
> in GDB is meant, not the name of the language per-se."

There's no reason to use @code for Python the name of a programming
language.  If we do that in the manual, that is a mistake.

For 'python' the program, we should use @command{python}, not @code.