@ferdnyc commented on this pull request.
> @@ -49,14 +49,14 @@ At the end of invocation of a parameterized macro, the
> above macros are
Within the body of a macro, there are several constructs that permit
testing for the presence of optional parameters. The simplest construct
-is "%{-f}" which expands (literally) to "-f" if -f was mentioned when the
-macro was invoked. There are also provisions for including text if flag
-was present using "%{-f:X}". This macro expands to (the expansion of) X
-if the flag was present. The negative form, "%{!-f:Y}", expanding to (the
+is `%{-f}` which expands (literally) to "-f" if -f was mentioned when the
That's a fair question. So that I wasn't fencing _everything_ in the document,
I tried to limit myself to only things the user would type into the `.spec`
file or on the command line -- so, the expansion into "-f" would stay
double-quoted. (That was my thinking, though it can of course be revised.)
The third -f, though, since it's something that would've been typed as part of
the macro invocation... probably should be, yeah. TBH I'm not sure I even
noticed it there.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2251#discussion_r1011748068
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2251/review/1165226...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
