Re: Manual consistency

[Julien Lepiller]

Le 5 juin 2020 13:34:57 GMT-04:00, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> a écrit :
>Hi Ludo,
>
>(from: http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/41253#10)
>
>On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 18:36, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> > There are many examples in guix.texi with $, and also many without.
>Plus
>> > some with # as the command line prompt.
>>
>> Yeah, the manual is kinda inconsistent, and I’m self-inconsistent to
>> tell the truth.  :-)
>>
>> I’ve come to the conclusion that snippets that contain only input
>should
>> be written without a prompt, for easier copy/pasting.
>>
>> (I’ve seen Python documentation where JS magic allows people to
>toggle
>> prompt display, I find it nice.)
>
>I propose to do a pass on that:
> - apply this rule: no-$ for only input and $ to distinguish between
>inputs and outputs.
> - backtick ` replaced by $(...) as discussed elsewhere
>and then send a "Fix typo" patch.  And maybe add a bullet in the
>Contributing Section.
>
>WDYT?
>
>All the best,
>simon

If there is a way to mark a sentence to wrap it into a class, we could also do 
some CSS magic with :before. That will allow us to show the prompt while making 
it non-selectable I think, which is nice visually and for copy-pasting. I'm not 
a texinfo guru though, so I don't know if it is feasible.