From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27663 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2012 21:19:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 27652 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Apr 2012 21:19:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM,SPF_SOFTFAIL,TW_BJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:19:45 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M1V00M00F70WD00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:18:44 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.100.223]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M1V00JC1F77X6J1@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:18:44 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:19:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [doc patch] objfile -> @var{objfile} [Re: [patch#2 3/6] set auto-load local-gdbinit warn-and-*] In-reply-to: <20120402211242.GA5980@host2.jankratochvil.net> To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83sjglde82.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20120329091258.GD25449@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83hax61rey.fsf@gnu.org> <20120402203055.GA26106@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83ty11dem7.fsf@gnu.org> <20120402211242.GA5980@host2.jankratochvil.net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:12:42 +0200 > From: Jan Kratochvil > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:10:24 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > But this means existing manual also needs this fix. > > > > Oops, sorry. I don't know what I was smoking. Of course, > > cross-references and nodes do not use @var. Sorry, sorry. > > But in practice it works OK and the formatting is then unified in all cases, > are you sure with this decision? Yes, I'm sure. The name of the node might be unfortunate, but using @-commands in node names is discouraged, see the Texinfo manual. I'm very sorry for my stupid mistake. Somehow, I managed to miss the fact that this was inside a @ref.