Mixing
What does C@t++ mean in the gdb man page?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was reading the manpage for gdb and I came across the line:
You can use GDB to debug programs written in C, C@t++, Fortran and Modula-2.
The C@t++ looks like a regex but I can't seem to decode it.
What does it mean?
regular-expression c c++ gdb
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was reading the manpage for gdb and I came across the line:
You can use GDB to debug programs written in C, C@t++, Fortran and Modula-2.
The C@t++ looks like a regex but I can't seem to decode it.
What does it mean?
regular-expression c c++ gdb
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
for which version? looks like C++ only they bodged the special encoding of++somehow
– thrig
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was reading the manpage for gdb and I came across the line:
You can use GDB to debug programs written in C, C@t++, Fortran and Modula-2.
The C@t++ looks like a regex but I can't seem to decode it.
What does it mean?
regular-expression c c++ gdb
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
I was reading the manpage for gdb and I came across the line:
You can use GDB to debug programs written in C, C@t++, Fortran and Modula-2.
The C@t++ looks like a regex but I can't seem to decode it.
What does it mean?
regular-expression c c++ gdb
regular-expression c c++ gdb
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
asked 1 hour ago
sam
168111
168111
for which version? looks like C++ only they bodged the special encoding of++somehow
– thrig
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
for which version? looks like C++ only they bodged the special encoding of++somehow
– thrig
1 hour ago
for which version? looks like C++ only they bodged the special encoding of
++ somehow– thrig
1 hour ago
for which version? looks like C++ only they bodged the special encoding of
++ somehow– thrig
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
GNU hates man pages, so they usually write documentation in another format and generate a man page from that, without really caring if the result is usable.
C@t++ is some texinfo markup which didn't get translated. It wasn't intended to be part of the user-visible documentation. It should simply say C++ (possibly with some special font for the ++ to make it look nice).
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The sequence @t... is the Texinfo markup to typeset a sequence using fixed-width font (see the Fonts section of the Texinfo manual for more details and some examples.)
It looks like they were trying to write "C++" and have the "++" use a fixed width font (like "++".) Perhaps someone found that yields better results with specific fonts while rendering documentation in PostScript or PDF or some format that uses variable-width fonts by default.
The reason why this doesn't seem to work and you're seeing the unprocessed sequence is that Texinfo is used by the info documentation system, while man uses nroff which is a different language with different commands (for instance, the command to switch to a constant width font in nroff is f(CW), so it of course didn't recognize the @t... sequence unchanged.
What probably happened is someone applied this change (perhaps as a global search/replace) using fixed-width font for the "++" part, but used the markup for the incorrect language (perhaps this went unnoticed if this was a global search/replace in multiple files and many/most of those were Texinfo files?) Therefore leaving the one instance of C@t++ you found.
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
GNU hates man pages, so they usually write documentation in another format and generate a man page from that, without really caring if the result is usable.
C@t++ is some texinfo markup which didn't get translated. It wasn't intended to be part of the user-visible documentation. It should simply say C++ (possibly with some special font for the ++ to make it look nice).
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
GNU hates man pages, so they usually write documentation in another format and generate a man page from that, without really caring if the result is usable.
C@t++ is some texinfo markup which didn't get translated. It wasn't intended to be part of the user-visible documentation. It should simply say C++ (possibly with some special font for the ++ to make it look nice).
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
GNU hates man pages, so they usually write documentation in another format and generate a man page from that, without really caring if the result is usable.
C@t++ is some texinfo markup which didn't get translated. It wasn't intended to be part of the user-visible documentation. It should simply say C++ (possibly with some special font for the ++ to make it look nice).
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
GNU hates man pages, so they usually write documentation in another format and generate a man page from that, without really caring if the result is usable.
C@t++ is some texinfo markup which didn't get translated. It wasn't intended to be part of the user-visible documentation. It should simply say C++ (possibly with some special font for the ++ to make it look nice).
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
answered 1 hour ago
Wumpus Q. Wumbley
4,1601120
4,1601120
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The sequence @t... is the Texinfo markup to typeset a sequence using fixed-width font (see the Fonts section of the Texinfo manual for more details and some examples.)
It looks like they were trying to write "C++" and have the "++" use a fixed width font (like "++".) Perhaps someone found that yields better results with specific fonts while rendering documentation in PostScript or PDF or some format that uses variable-width fonts by default.
The reason why this doesn't seem to work and you're seeing the unprocessed sequence is that Texinfo is used by the info documentation system, while man uses nroff which is a different language with different commands (for instance, the command to switch to a constant width font in nroff is f(CW), so it of course didn't recognize the @t... sequence unchanged.
What probably happened is someone applied this change (perhaps as a global search/replace) using fixed-width font for the "++" part, but used the markup for the incorrect language (perhaps this went unnoticed if this was a global search/replace in multiple files and many/most of those were Texinfo files?) Therefore leaving the one instance of C@t++ you found.
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The sequence @t... is the Texinfo markup to typeset a sequence using fixed-width font (see the Fonts section of the Texinfo manual for more details and some examples.)
It looks like they were trying to write "C++" and have the "++" use a fixed width font (like "++".) Perhaps someone found that yields better results with specific fonts while rendering documentation in PostScript or PDF or some format that uses variable-width fonts by default.
The reason why this doesn't seem to work and you're seeing the unprocessed sequence is that Texinfo is used by the info documentation system, while man uses nroff which is a different language with different commands (for instance, the command to switch to a constant width font in nroff is f(CW), so it of course didn't recognize the @t... sequence unchanged.
What probably happened is someone applied this change (perhaps as a global search/replace) using fixed-width font for the "++" part, but used the markup for the incorrect language (perhaps this went unnoticed if this was a global search/replace in multiple files and many/most of those were Texinfo files?) Therefore leaving the one instance of C@t++ you found.
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The sequence @t... is the Texinfo markup to typeset a sequence using fixed-width font (see the Fonts section of the Texinfo manual for more details and some examples.)
It looks like they were trying to write "C++" and have the "++" use a fixed width font (like "++".) Perhaps someone found that yields better results with specific fonts while rendering documentation in PostScript or PDF or some format that uses variable-width fonts by default.
The reason why this doesn't seem to work and you're seeing the unprocessed sequence is that Texinfo is used by the info documentation system, while man uses nroff which is a different language with different commands (for instance, the command to switch to a constant width font in nroff is f(CW), so it of course didn't recognize the @t... sequence unchanged.
What probably happened is someone applied this change (perhaps as a global search/replace) using fixed-width font for the "++" part, but used the markup for the incorrect language (perhaps this went unnoticed if this was a global search/replace in multiple files and many/most of those were Texinfo files?) Therefore leaving the one instance of C@t++ you found.
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
The sequence @t... is the Texinfo markup to typeset a sequence using fixed-width font (see the Fonts section of the Texinfo manual for more details and some examples.)
It looks like they were trying to write "C++" and have the "++" use a fixed width font (like "++".) Perhaps someone found that yields better results with specific fonts while rendering documentation in PostScript or PDF or some format that uses variable-width fonts by default.
The reason why this doesn't seem to work and you're seeing the unprocessed sequence is that Texinfo is used by the info documentation system, while man uses nroff which is a different language with different commands (for instance, the command to switch to a constant width font in nroff is f(CW), so it of course didn't recognize the @t... sequence unchanged.
What probably happened is someone applied this change (perhaps as a global search/replace) using fixed-width font for the "++" part, but used the markup for the incorrect language (perhaps this went unnoticed if this was a global search/replace in multiple files and many/most of those were Texinfo files?) Therefore leaving the one instance of C@t++ you found.
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
answered 47 mins ago
Filipe Brandenburger
4,187622
4,187622
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476167%2fwhat-does-ct-mean-in-the-gdb-man-page%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
for which version? looks like C++ only they bodged the special encoding of
++somehow– thrig
1 hour ago