[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.62 AT_SETUP limitations

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: 2.62 AT_SETUP limitations
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:39:36 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)

Eric Blake <ebb9 <at> byu.net> writes:

> So here's my proposed patch, which went with @{:@ and @:}@ for ( and ), 
> prior to reading your suggestion.  Apart from the final spelling, does this 
> patch look sufficient?  Any other votes for the preferred spelling?

Plus this NEWS entry (again, with corrected spelling if desired):

** Two new quadrigraphs have been introduced: @{:@ for (, and @:}@ for ),
   allowing the output of unbalanced parantheses in contexts such as
   AS_HELP_STRING or AT_SETUP that must determine the length of
   expanded text.

Eric Blake

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]