Date:	Thu, 31 May 2001 11:51:59 -0400
Message-Id:	<200105311551.LAA24421@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<20010531100838.A7495@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT Williams
	on Thu, 31 May 2001 10:08:38 -0500)
Subject:	Re: djgpp: djgpp/src/utils/djasm.txi
References:	<200105301527 DOT LAA03869 AT delorie DOT com> <9003-Wed30May2001204120+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010531100838 DOT A7495 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
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

> -: -: @code{djasm}
> -: -: @sc{djasm}
> -: -: @acronym{djasm}
> -: -: 
> -: -: something else?
> -:
> -: DJGPP and djgpp use no markup.
> -: djasm is a file name, and uses whatever markup other file names use.
> 
> which I interpreted to mean I shouldn't use @acronym or @sc.
> Did I misunderstand you, DJ?

I've never used markup for DJGPP before.  @sc is a typographical "fix"
that just makes all-caps things look right in print.  But don't use
@code or @file for djgpp.

Traditionally, I use DJGPP at the start of sentences and djgpp in the
middle.  Since the djgpp one wouldn't use @sc, I wouldn't expect the
DJGPP one to use it either, because it's just a `capitalized' version
of the other.  Using @sc for DJGPP and not djgpp is inconsistent.

- Raw text -