Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] user-manual: Standardize backtick quoting
From: W. Trevor King <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:56:06
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:10:34AM -0500, W. Trevor King wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -4155,8 +4156,9 @@ As a result, the general consistency of an object can always be tested independently of the contents or the type of the object: all objects can be validated by verifying that (a) their hashes match the content of the file and (b) the object successfully inflates to a stream of bytes that -forms a sequence of <ascii type without space> {plus} <space> {plus} <ascii decimal -size> {plus} <byte\0> {plus} <binary object data>. +forms a sequence of +`<ascii type without space> {plus} <space> {plus} <ascii decimal size> +{plus} <byte\0> {plus} <binary object data>`. The structured objects can further have their structure and connectivity to other objects verified. This is generally done with
Reading through the user-manual history, it looks like I goofed here.
6cf378f0 (docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal, 2012-04-26)
points out that `{plus}` is no longer interpreted inside backticks.
In v3, I'll use `+` instead of `{plus}`.
--
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 836 bytes