Re: Comments wanted on code highlighting in PDF output

[Carl Sorensen]

On 2/24/22, 9:03 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" <wl@gnu.org> wrote:

    
    > I believe that these pdf documents are a significant improvement.  I
    > love them.
    
    Good to hear, thanks.
    
    > I do not see the need to use the syntax highlighting in the text
    > references.  In fact, I think the syntax highlighting in the text
    > references would get in the way.
    
    Could you explain why?  I think it makes some sense if, for example,
    `\foo` is always printed in bold.
    
I believe that the highlighting is helpful where I am trying to distinguish 
between different parts of LilyPond code (in a code snippet).  I don't believe 
it to be necessary when I have only one piece of LilyPond code '\foo'.  It is 
already differentiated from the body text by a different font.  I don't need 
(or particularly want) to have to tell the difference between different words 
that are separated from one another by body text.

Furthermore, the syntax highlighting is only useful in the body to the extent 
that I understand the details of the syntax highlighting.  In the code, I don't 
really need to be sure what the bold highlighting indicates; it's sufficient 
(for me) that it helps identify something special that I can more easily 
understand.  In the body, if I see italic, I'll have to remember what italic 
means if it is to be of any use to me.

I doubt that I would hate having the syntax highlighting in the body.  I 
wouldn't object to somebody doing it.  But neither would I ask anybody to do it.

Thanks,

Carl