[godbyk]

This PR demonstrates an option outlined in issue #1060: a smarter \placeholder macro that typesets the placeholder either italics or slanted depending on whether it's code or roman text.

• In roman text, it sets the placeholder in italics.
• In monospaced text, it sets the placeholder in slanted type.
• In sans serif text, it sets the placeholder in italics.

A diff of the PDFs is available here. A sample of pages that differ include 29, 30, 433–435, 880–890.

[jensmaurer]

"All checks have failed".

[godbyk]

@jensmaurer That's due to

Overfull \hbox (0.85309pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 3965--3971
Overfull \hbox (0.85309pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 4260--4267
Overfull \hbox (6.936pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 539--558

[godbyk]

I rebased and quelled the overfull line warnings with the use of \sloppy.

[zygoloid]

(In the diffs, the cyan is the new formatting and the red is the current formatting.)

Initial reaction: I think I somewhat prefer the current formatting for teletype placeholders. Use of a different typeface makes the placeholders stand out more clearly; the difference between slanted and unslanted teletype is easier to overlook, precisely because it's more visually consistent (which I think is the goal here).

Let's discuss this in person. We should also consider how to format things like @\seebelow@ (which is unaffected by the current patch).

[jensmaurer]

Editorial meeting:

• Slanted font makes the placeholders stand out less in the library; we don't want them to be confused with identifiers. No change for that.
• Consider changing "see below" etc. to roman italics (same as comments). -> new issue with samples attached
• Use slanted font for definition for "contextually converted to bool".

[zygoloid]

Before:

After:

I think this confirms:

Slanted font makes the placeholders stand out less in the library; we don't want them to be confused with identifiers. No change for that.

(The difference between the slanted and non-slanted text has become too subtle.)

[AlisdairM]

Are we still planning to land some part of this PR? Should we consider closing? It has been (mostly) dormant for almost 5 years now.