From: Stefan Richter Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:15:00 GMT Subject: Re: pull-fetch-param.txt Message-ID: <4523EC14.6070806@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4523E120.6050007@s5r6.in-berlin.de> I wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Can you try reformatting the original >> >>> :: >>> The canonical format of a parameter is >>> `+?:`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed >>> by the source ref, followed by a colon `:`, followed by >>> the destination ref. >> to something like >> >>> :: >>> The canonical format of a parameter is >>> `+?:`; that is, an optional plus >>> `+`, followed >>> by the source ref, followed by a colon `:`, followed by >>> the destination ref. >> and verify that conjecture? > > This hack does not help. The two `+` are still absent from the manpage > (but as before, the `+` in the next paragraph is printed as desired). After a few more experiments with different placements of backticks et cetera, I found only the following variants to work with asciidoc 8: (as mentioned, not compatible to asciidoc 7): `$$+$$?:`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed (as mentioned, compatible) `\+?:`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed (also OK, and this is probably the only really correct syntax) `\+?:`; that is, an optional plus `\+`, followed (also OK but misses the monospace formatting on the plus or on the plus and questionmark) \+`?:`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed \+?`:`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed \+?`:`; that is, an optional plus \+, followed `\+?:`; that is, an optional plus +, followed Note, `+``?:`; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed does _not_ work. It stops on invalid syntax in the intermediary xml file. Also +\+?:+; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed or `+`+?:+; that is, an optional plus `+`, followed do _not_ work. They don't print what we want to see. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-==- =-=- --=-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/