Preserve whitespace after \shr and \shl where appropriate. #1342
Conversation
| @@ -2633,7 +2633,7 @@ | |||
| the function signature | |||
| \tcode{basic_ostream\& stream::operator\shl(ios_base\& (*)(ios_base\&))} | |||
| to permit expressions of the form | |||
| \tcode{cout \shl dec} | |||
| \tcode{cout \shl{} dec} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the point of this macro. Just say << here (and everywhere).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, I'll give it a try
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The macros are defined as:
\newcommand{\shl}{<{<}}
\newcommand{\shr}{>{>}}
I tried removing the extra curlies, and it changes the order of some index entries. So I guess that's what they're for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't they also prevent LaTeX replacing them with guillemets in some contexts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did an "appearance" check with diffpdf, and no guillemets showed up. Maybe because the macros are only ever used inside \tcode and similar.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think the idea that anyone needs to prevent guillemets is archaic and pointless, and so we really should just get rid of those two macros.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here's a representative example of the index entry order difference I mentioned:
If that change is deemed acceptable, then I can submit a pull request to remove \shl and \shr altogether.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've seen them causing problems in the standard, but maybe it was just the one use in lex.tex or something like that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jwakely: Maybe they arose when a \tcode or equivalent was missing? There are no guillemets now.
|
Fixed by #1346 |
Diffs:
