Am Do., 31. Dez. 2020 um 21:04 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > > Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Am Do., 31. Dez. 2020 um 12:31 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > >> > >> Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > Am Do., 31. Dez. 2020 um 00:11 Uhr schrieb Thomas Morley > >> > <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > >> >> Am Do., 31. Dez. 2020 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > >> >> > > >> >> > It's probably a bug. Try replacing in > >> >> > > >> >> > (format #f "@item @code{~a} > >> >> > (~a)\n" > >> >> > > >> >> > in the function doc-markup-function-properties in > >> >> > scm/document-markup.scm the second ~a with ~s (which should quote > >> >> > everything in read syntax). This would likely have more consequences, > >> >> > like when there are string defaults. > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > David Kastrup > >> >> > >> >> I'll have a look. > >> > > >> > While using ~s #\newline is displayed properly: > >> > Used properties: > >> > • split-char (#\newline) > >> > > >> > Though, empty lists would be displayed without quote (p.e. from > >> > markup-command \whiteout): > >> > Used properties: > >> > • thickness (()) > >> > >> That is correct: values are not quoted in such lists (there would be > >> scheme-expr->lily-string if push came to shove, but I doubt it is a good > >> idea here). > >> > >> > I regard the formatting code a bit cryptic. > >> > How are opinions about keeping the apostrophe for empty lists? > >> > >> That would be really inconsistent. If you don't like ((...)) one could > >> try to come up with a different kind of formatting the default values. > >> > >> > Pairs don't display it anyway. P.e. from \overtie: > >> > Used properties: > >> > • shorten-pair ((0 . 0)) > >> > >> -- > >> David Kastrup > > > > A patch is now up, dropping apostrophes. > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/588 > > Come to think of it: on top of using ~s here, wouldn't it also be > necessary to quote characters @ { } by preceding them with @ ?
My knowledge of texinfo is rudimentary. After a quick glance over doc-strings from our source it seems @{ and @} are only used _inside_ of @code{ ... }. @@ only once and as (@@ module-name binding-name), i.e. no texinfo. This makes me think it is not needed to add @ to { and } outside of @code{ ... }. I may be wrong, though. 5.4.6 Syntax survey -> Special characters http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/contributor/syntax-survey#special-characters is not specific in this regard, though. Anyway, in `doc-markup-function-properties` from scm/document-markup.scm only the property-names are set into @code{ ... } Those or all either symbols or procedures. If my above assumption is correct, then we're fine there. > Maybe scm/documentation-lib.scm should contain a function for that? Something > like texi-quote or so? You mean something like `ps-quote` from scm/framework-ps.scm? Cheers, Harm