On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 07:44:33PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> I don't agree with changing the language to require braces. There is
> not a good reason to change it. Although writing "@itemize @bullet{}"
> may be more regular than "@itemize @bullet", it is a core and stable
> part of the Texinfo lanugage, regardless of which one you might prefer.
It is not about which one I prefer, it is about consistency and
simplicity of the language.
> I would rather say that "@itemize @w{}" is the usage that is permiitted
> by details of the implementation. "@itemize @bullet" is the more typical
> usage.
>
> It seems like there are two permitted types of argument
> * @itemize with a glyph command as an argument, without braces
> * @itemize with any valid Texinfo argument. For example, "@itemize A"
> to use the letter "A" as the bullet.
>
> The second is hardly encouraged or used at all, except for "@itemize @w{}".
> The last could be checked for as a special case. We could try to check
> in existing manuals how @itemize is used. There may not be a benefit in
> trying to be more general.
To me there is a benefit, language simplicity and consistency, this would
allow to reduce the permitted types of argument from two possibilities,
one (glyph command without brace) only present in that context, to only
one possibility, simpler and more in line with the remaining of the
language, "@itemize with any valid Texinfo argument". To me simplicity
and consistency of the language is a relevant feature, as it allows
users to remember the language more easily and avoid mistakes.
I do not propose to remove the support for the case of "@itemize with a
glyph command as an argument, without braces" as it is gonna be in
manuals for a long time, but avoid new manuals with that construct by
proposing in the manual to use a construct that it more consistent with
the remaining of the language.
--
Pat
