[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: master 5b1109394c: ; * lisp/edmacro.el: Minor doc fixes.
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
Re: master 5b1109394c: ; * lisp/edmacro.el: Minor doc fixes. |
Date: |
Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:15:43 +0200 |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> Again, that's not what I asked. I asked whether _all_ references to
> these keys in doc strings should be quoted.
If these are keybindings, then yes. I think we have cases where RET
does not refer to a keybinding. In such cases, it should not be
tagged.
> If the answer is YES, I
> guess that means we will soon see changes to that effect all over the
> place in the existing code, and we should comment on patches which
> don't do that to tell the contributors to do so. Right?
I think we should ask contributors to do that, yes. I'd encourage
everyone to tag keybindings as such with substitute-command-keys when
they run into them.
However, it would be nice if we thought of more clear conventions in
these common cases:
1. M-x some-prompting-command RET
2. M-x some-prompting-command some-user-input RET
Should there be a non-fontified space between the command name and RET
in (1) or should they have the same face? Should "some-user-input" in
(2) have the same face as a keybinding, or should we have a separate
face (for example: no face at all by convention) for replies to
prompts?