On 3 March 2013 17:45, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Sun 03 Mar 2013 02:07, Daniel Hartwig <mand...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Can I ask whether it is preferred to use, e.g. @code{#f}, for the >> default values, as some places seem to and others don't. This patch >> is not using @code, but then, neither does it touch any doc. that was >> previously. > > Good question. Do you have an opinion?
I suppose that the context of @deffn is somewhat similar to @code, so the nesting may be considered redundant. However, when I look at cases where non-atomic expressions are used, such as #:lang in: -- Scheme Procedure: eval-string string [#:module=#f] [#:file=#f] [#:line=#f] [#:column=#f] [#:lang=(current-language)] [#:compile?=#f] we see that there is some potential confusion between the close, unescaped (as with @code, ‘’) nesting of the parens/brackets. Further, usage of ‘=’ like that is not valid Scheme code, so the contexts are actually more distinct than the ealier supposition. This leads me to have a _slight_ preference for using @code, as being more technically correct. Though cases such as the above are in the minority.