Re: master 5b1109394c: ; * lisp/edmacro.el: Minor doc fixes.

[Stefan Kangas]

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?