Return to Answer

Correct, they should be used for code (and code-like artifacts).

If that's the only change, and it's wrongly applied, reject as "no improvement whatsoever" or "causes harm".

I don't have a problem with filenames, paths, API methods, commands, etc.–those are computery "artifacts" that should be differentiated from expository text. Products, trademarks, etc. aren't.

When emphasis or clarification is needed for non-artifacts we have italics and bold.

Correct, they should be used for code (and code-like artifacts).

If that's the only change, and it's incorrect usage, reject as "no improvement whatsoever" or "causes harm".

I don't have a problem with filenames, paths, API methods, commands, etc.–those are computery "artifacts" that should be differentiated from expository text. Products, trademarks, etc. aren't.

When emphasis or clarification is needed for non-artifacts we have italics and bold.

Correct, they should be used for code (and code-like artifacts).

If that's the only change, and it's wrongly-applied, reject as trivial–"useless" isn't an option.

I don't have a problem with filenames, paths, API methods, commands, etc.–those are computery "artifacts" that should be differentiated from expository text. Products, trademarks, etc. aren't.

When emphasis or clarification is needed for non-artifacts we have italics and bold.

Correct, they should be used for code (and code-like artifacts).

If that's the only change, and it's wrongly applied, reject as "no improvement whatsoever" or "causes harm".

I don't have a problem with filenames, paths, API methods, commands, etc.–those are computery "artifacts" that should be differentiated from expository text. Products, trademarks, etc. aren't.

When emphasis or clarification is needed for non-artifacts we have italics and bold.

Correct, they should be used for code (and code-like artifacts).

If that's the only change, and it's wrongly-applied, reject as trivial–"useless" isn't an option.

I don't have a problem with filenames, paths, API methods, commands, etc.–those are computery "artifacts" that should be clearly differentiated from expository text. Products, trademarks, etc. aren't.

When emphasis or clarification is needed for non-artifacts we have italics and bold.

Correct, they should be used for code (and code-like artifacts).

If that's the only change, and it's wrongly-applied, reject as trivial–"useless" isn't an option.

I don't have a problem with filenames, paths, API methods, commands, etc.–those are computery "artifacts" that should be differentiated from expository text. Products, trademarks, etc. aren't.

When emphasis or clarification is needed for non-artifacts we have italics and bold.