[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation? |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:24:48 +0900 |
Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Some fonts have the apostrophe represented by, approximately speaking,
> the mirror image of the grave accent. In that case `htonl' looks like
> it has balanced quotes.
>
> These days ‘single’ and “double” quotes are available in Unicode.
Unicode quotes look better (on unicode-capable displays[*]), but also
make things much more annoying for any kind of programmatic handling of
the output. The standard ` and ' are a reasonable compromise, I think.
[*] Well _usually_ look better... I've noticed cases where unicode
quotes are rendered so lightly that they end up being almost invisible...
-Miles
--
Would you like fries with that?
Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?, Richard Kettlewell, 2011/02/08
- Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?,
Miles Bader <=
Re: Why backquotes in GNU documentation?, Tassilo Horn, 2011/02/10