Date:	Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:10:13 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc:	DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: @r{, @code{blabla}}
In-Reply-To:	<200007161350.PAA15898@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000716190520.23898B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> Is it ok to use @code{} in @r{}?

It should work.

> +@findex rand48 AT r{, increased speed of @code{drand48} and @code{erand48}}

You could also say this instead:

 @findex rand48 AT r{, increased speed of }drand48 AT r{ and }erand48

@findex implicitly wraps the entire entry in @code, so you only need to 
mark the exceptions with @r.  Some people like the second alternative 
better, some like the first.

Actually, I think the following is better still:

 @findex drand48 AT r{, increased speed}
 @findex erand48 AT r{, increased speed}

- Raw text -