See Issue #392.

Hm, that's just a shorthand for the same thing and we use \cvqual{cv} in several other places. Should we have a separate cleanup? We also variably use \cv\ \tcode{foo} and \tcode{\cv{} foo}.

I'd prefer general guidance on which one to use and how, put that on the wiki, then clean everything up in one wash. What do you think?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Thomas Köppe notifications@github.com
wrote:

Hm, that's just a shorthand for the same thing and we use \cvqual{cv} in
several other places. Should we have a separate cleanup? We also variably
use \cv\ \tcode{foo} and \tcode{\cv{} foo}.

I'd prefer general guidance on which one to use and how, put that on the
wiki, then clean everything up in one wash. What do you think?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#402 (comment).

Changed it to \cv\ \tcode{void} and also made the only two uses of \tcode{\cv consistent. Now we have only two style ambiguities left:

1 \cv\ vs \cv{}
2. \cv vs \cvqual{cv}

I'm happy to leave both of those be, since in both cases each alternative has roughly the same amount of use.

PTAL