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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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}