Re: Formatting of packet descriptions in GDB manual

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

Now that we've eliminated the brief summaries from the packets' @item
lines, I'd like to suggest using @samp for packet contents, instead of
@code.  I think this is more consistent with their general use in
Texinfo, and it looks okay in print and on-line.  But it's arguable;
what do folks think?  Aesthetically, I appreciate having the quotes
around the packet contents  when they're mixed in with the text.

From texinfo.info:

9.1.2 `@code'{SAMPLE-CODE}
--------------------------

Use the `@code' command to indicate text that is a piece of a program
and which consists of entire syntactic tokens.  Enclose the text in
braces.

  Thus, you should use `@code' for an expression in a program, for the
name of a variable or function used in a program, or for a keyword in a
programming language.

  Use `@code' for command names in languages that resemble programming
languages, such as Texinfo.  For example, `@code' and `@samp' are
produced by writing `@code{@@code}' and `@code{@@samp}' in the Texinfo
source, respectively.

...

9.1.5 `@samp'{TEXT}
-------------------

Use the `@samp' command to indicate text that is a literal example or
`sample' of a sequence of characters in a file, string, pattern, etc.
Enclose the text in braces.  The argument appears within single
quotation marks in both the Info file and the printed manual; in
addition, it is printed in a fixed-width font.