On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 01:32:16PM +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Here is another proposal, which seems much clearer to me, but is
> > probably too long:
>
> > @itemize command argument with omitted braces should not require an
> > argument, but @asis does. Use braces for @asis
>
> I suggest
>
> ```
> '@asis' needs braces here; say '@itemize @asis{}'.
> ```
I do not like much that option, because we do not have any idea why the
user ended up using '@itemize @asis'. Maybe with @asis, it will be in
general the case that @asis{} is correct, but with other @-command for
example @strong, it is unlikely to be the case. It could be an error,
for instance the user wanted to use @table, it could be that the user
actually wanted to use
@itemize @strong{@bullet{}}
it could be that user wanted something like
@itemize @asis{} (or @itemize @w{}).
Saying that the user should say '@itemize @strong{}' is likely to be
misleading in some cases, while saying that braces are needed
forces the user to think again about what she/he wanted to do. Another
option could be to just say
'@asis' needs braces here
'@strong' needs braces here
What do other think on that possibility?
> IMHO it is not necessary in the error message to explain this in
> detail.
I actually agree on that. But it should say enough in order not to be
misleading.
--
Pat
