On 4/14/11, Christoph Päper <christoph.pae...@crissov.de> wrote: > Jukka K. Korpela: > >> <var>c</var> would be odd, wouldn't it, since the symbol denotes a >> universal constant of nature. > > It would not, ‘c’ is merely a variable with constant value. > Well, a constant isn't really variable any more, is it? I thought <var> was meant to mark up text that couldn't simply be 'copypasted' without filling in the unknowns (free variables). Defined variables (whether in source code or formulae) do not conform to that definition.
So, <code>rm -r <var>$path</var></code> would conform (as a reply to the question "how does one remove a (potentially non-empty) directory on *nix?") as $path is undefined, but <code><var>i</var>++</code> would not, as i isn't ment to be substituted. > <var>E</var> = <var>m</var>·<var>c</var><sup>2</sup> > > Or <math>, eventually. Or, in the meantime, <code> (IMHO, at least). It's not source code for a computer program, but for all purposes and intentions I can think of, source code and formulae can be treated equivalently. The spec formally requires 'computer code,' i.e. sth understood by a computer, making my suggested usage non-conformant.