Re: Formatting of packet descriptions in GDB manual

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

On 11/12/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > I tried that first --- but notice that each @item has explanatory text
> > after the packet, like "--- remove hardware breakpoint".
>
> This is a @table, so that text should be in the next line, not on the
> @item line.  In many cases, this text is redundant anyway, since what
> follows the @item line repeats the explanation.

Bless your heart.  That's what I actually wanted to do, but not badly
enough to bother picking a fight over it.

> Because each individual character might be of some importance,
> mnemonic if not anything else.  But that's a guess, I really don't
> have a good answer for this question.

I just see our job as defining a syntax.  There's no tokenization
going on here; those characters must appear in that exact sequence.

> Perhaps we should use blanks between those @var's, but explain in the
> text that there shouldn't be blanks in the real packet, and give an
> example to demonstrate that

BLANKS???  What's WRONG with you???

Of course --- that'd work perfectly.