Robert Dodier writes:
>Jay Belanger wrote:
>
>
>>@macro var{bar}
>><\bar\>
>>@end macro
>>
>>would work, or perhaps
>>
>>@ifinfo
>>@macro var{bar}
>><\bar\>
>>@end macro
>>@end ifinfo
>>
>
>OK, I misunderstood before. Thanks for the clarification.
>
>Experimenting a little bit, I see that texinfo is happy to
>have @var nested in @defun and @code, so we can have stuff
>like ``@defun save (@var{filename}, all)'' and
>``@code{save (@var{filename}, all)''. That would be great!
>
>Would we want to put @var on every user-definable argument?
>It certainly makes sense when there are both user-definable and
>keyword arguments for a function, as with ``save''. But maybe
>it's too much when the arguments are simpler -- would we want
>to see ``sin (<x>)'' ? I guess I'd rather see ``sin (<x>)''
>than apply @var inconsistently. Comments?
>
>
I'd like to see @var everywhere when we are talking about
function parameter as a whole in spite of the fact that
actual value of the argument may be restricted to few
keywords.
But, please, take a look at this text:
===================================================
@code{%e_to_numlog} - when @code{true}, @code{r} some rational number, and
@code{x} some expression, @code{%e^(r*log(x))} will be simplified into
@code{x^r} . It should be noted that the @code{radcan} command also
does this transformation, and more complicated transformations of this
ilk as well.
The @code{logcontract} command "contracts" expressions containing
@code{log}.
===================================================
What do you think about r and x? It is @var{r}/@var{x} ?
--
Vadim V. Zhytnikov
<vvzhy@mail.ru>
<vvzhy@netorn.ru>