5

Every once in a while I see suggested edits that mostly consist of bolding things. For example, this specific example took a bunch of "TableNames" and made them into "TableNames".

It seems to me that TableNames would be a more appropriate choice of formatting. I had decided to reject this edit, but it had already gotten approved.

Is there a preferred stylistic choice in this area? Was I wrong in wanting to reject this suggested edit?

4
  • 2
    Also, instead of rolling back, I made an edit on top of it... that may have also been the wrong way to handle it. Feedback?
    – Jeff B
    Mar 10, 2014 at 19:10
  • 1
    Generally bolding is reserved for headings . nobody bolds code Mar 10, 2014 at 19:14
  • @JeffBridgman that edit was fine, if you hadn't done it I would have rolled back...
    – rene
    Mar 10, 2014 at 19:15
  • I would have used code formatting, as well. Though, I would have made other changes such as put the example record on it's own line. I think making the "correct" edit instead of rolling back makes sense.
    – codeMagic
    Mar 10, 2014 at 19:16

1 Answer 1

1

I prefer using this style when it's a language keyword, for example int, struct my_struct;.

When it comes to tables, it's a matter of taste, since it's case-insensitive and it's not really a code. I don't think it's a problem changing "table" to "table", it looks better and easier to understand when looking without actually reading each word that it's a name of a table. Without making it bold, it would be harder to seek it in this context.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .