gdb docs: do not format the ++ in C++ in man page

  This change means that the html version of the man page does not stylize
the "++" in the third paragraph.
(https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/gdb-man.html). The
tradeoff is, in my opinion, worth it as the man page reads better, since
it is now formatted properly. Before this change, it read as:
"... programs written in C, C@t{++}, ...".
---

Hello, this is my first patch to a GNU project ever and also the first time I
use an email-based git workflow, so please excuse my mistakes :-)

 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

On 2019-09-16 5:47 p.m., Carl Bordum Hansen wrote:
> This change means that the html version of the man page does not stylize
> the "++" in the third paragraph.
> (https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/gdb-man.html). The
> tradeoff is, in my opinion, worth it as the man page reads better, since
> it is now formatted properly. Before this change, it read as:
> "... programs written in C, C@t{++}, ...".
> ---
> 
> Hello, this is my first patch to a GNU project ever and also the first time I
> use an email-based git workflow, so please excuse my mistakes :-)

Hi Carl,

Thanks for your patches.  I see you've used git-send-email, that's excellent.

Like I said on IRC, I think the best way to fix this would be to fix the texi2pod.pl
script to handle @t instead.  I'll reply to your other patches over here:

  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00295.html

Simon
  

> From: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:19:12 -0400
> 
> On 2019-09-16 5:47 p.m., Carl Bordum Hansen wrote:
> > This change means that the html version of the man page does not stylize
> > the "++" in the third paragraph.
> > (https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/gdb-man.html). The
> > tradeoff is, in my opinion, worth it as the man page reads better, since
> > it is now formatted properly. Before this change, it read as:
> > "... programs written in C, C@t{++}, ...".
> > ---
> > 
> > Hello, this is my first patch to a GNU project ever and also the first time I
> > use an email-based git workflow, so please excuse my mistakes :-)
> 
> Hi Carl,
> 
> Thanks for your patches.  I see you've used git-send-email, that's excellent.
> 
> Like I said on IRC, I think the best way to fix this would be to fix the texi2pod.pl
> script to handle @t instead.

I agree, but I'm also confused about the problem.  If I go to that
page, I don't see @t there, and looking at the page source reveals
that C@t{++} has been correctly converted to C<tt>++</tt>.  So I'm not
sure why Carl sees something different.

What am I missing here?
  

On 2019-09-17 2:02 a.m., Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Like I said on IRC, I think the best way to fix this would be to fix the texi2pod.pl
>> script to handle @t instead.
> 
> I agree, but I'm also confused about the problem.  If I go to that
> page, I don't see @t there, and looking at the page source reveals
> that C@t{++} has been correctly converted to C<tt>++</tt>.  So I'm not
> sure why Carl sees something different.
> 
> What am I missing here?
> 

Hi Eli,

We are talking about the actual man page, as viewed with "man". The HTML (or info) version is rendered fine.

I can view it by doing:

1. `cd gdb/doc` in the build directory
2. `make man`
3. `man -l gdb.1`

Simon
  

> Cc: carl@bordum.dk, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:36:51 -0400
> 
> > I agree, but I'm also confused about the problem.  If I go to that
> > page, I don't see @t there, and looking at the page source reveals
> > that C@t{++} has been correctly converted to C<tt>++</tt>.  So I'm not
> > sure why Carl sees something different.
> > 
> > What am I missing here?
> > 
> 
> Hi Eli,
> 
> We are talking about the actual man page, as viewed with "man". The HTML (or info) version is rendered fine.
> 
> I can view it by doing:
> 
> 1. `cd gdb/doc` in the build directory
> 2. `make man`
> 3. `man -l gdb.1`

Ah, OK.  I do see @t{++} in the man page.  I was confused by the
reference to the HTML page and by patches posted that seemed to only
affect HTML.

So back to the topic: I do agree that the conversion tool should be
taught about @t.