I proposed this edit to a Stack Exchange answer. Because there were three rather lengthy block quotes, I thought bolding the most relevant sentences would be helpful to readers, especially if they were skimming the page.

This is the latter part of one such quote, and the note I added following it:

For the shell's purposes, a command which exits with a zero exit status has succeeded. An exit status of zero indicates success. A non-zero exit status indicates failure. When a command terminates on a fatal signal N, bash uses the value of 128+N as the exit status.

(Bolding mine.)

(The outer quote is an excerpt of the mentioned answer; the answer quotes the manual page of the Bourne Again Shell.)

The bolding mine note was meant to claim the addition of boldface—but not of italics!—in both that quote and a later quote in the answer. Italics were present in the quoted manual page. (Actually, I, an editor, bolded the text, but I don't feel that's relevant here.)

Is this clear enough, or should I do something else?

  • The first bolded sentence is redundant because it is aforementioned. I think the best phrasing would be: ...command which exits with a zero status has succeeded (a non-zero status indicates failure). When a command... – Dog Lover Apr 19 '15 at 22:17
  • @WindowsDude7 I completely agree, but that's how it is in the manual page. Can't misquote! – Blacklight Shining Apr 19 '15 at 22:18
  • Sorry, I missed that. Yes, I think bolding was a good thing to do. It seems very odd that such a repetitive sentence would be in an edited piece of work! – Dog Lover Apr 19 '15 at 22:20
  • It looks fine to me. You probably went above and beyond the norm. – Hot Licks Apr 19 '15 at 23:10
  • 1
    Isn't this a topic for Meta? – Brian Hitchcock Apr 20 '15 at 5:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.