[trimming the linux-fsdevel list from CC, reasoning that it cares little
about typography]
Hi Alex,
At 2024-12-05T11:02:10+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> No; the comma shouldn't be in italics.
>
> .B STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC
> .RI ( stx_atomic_write_unit_min ,
> .IR stx_atomic_write_unit_max ,
> and
> .IR stx_atomic_write_segments_max )
Style authorities differ on this point.[1] At least three factors are
in tension:
1. In traditional typography, one does in fact set the comma in italics
like the preceding word. To some eyes, including mine, that looks
better.
2. It is true that the comma is not part of the named parameter, so
under rules analogous to those that govern quotation marks in the
U.K., for instance, one would _not_ put the comma in italics.
3. It doesn't matter all that much because unlike with literals, like
STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC, precise copy-and-pasting doesn't buy you much.
A formal argument name frequently _lacks_ a corresponding symbol of
the same name in source code. Users of memmem(3) need not name
their parameters "needle" or "haystack". So almost no one needs to
precisely aim their pointer between the final letter of the
parameter name and the trailing punctuation.
Given these factors, if you have a strong preference here, I think you
should document it in man-pages(7).
Regards,
Branden
[1] https://iconlogic.blogs.com/weblog/2011/04/writing-grammar-do-i-italicize-the-comma-after-an-italic-word.html
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9878/should-punctuation-surrounding-italicised-words-be-italicised
(The foregoing quotes the [in]famous Chicago Manual of Style, which
I generally like except for the malicious lies about historical
inter-sentence spacing practices promulgated by its editor, the
dreadful Russell Harper.[2])
https://style.mla.org/comma-after-italicized-element/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20171217060354/http://www.heracliteanriver.com/?p=324
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
