Update of bug #66410 (group groff):
Status: None => Need Info
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #1:
[comment #0 original submission:]
> If the .Lb macro is used without a corresponding library definition present
> then the following warning is emitted:
> mdoc warning: .Lb: no description for library 'libxyz' available (#123)
> This seems overly restrictive, denying man pages for standalone applications
> from taking advantage of this useful semantic markup to make descriptive
> reference to libraries which are relevant to the present document but are
> unlikely to be, or cannot be guaranteed to have registered doc strings in the
> target system. (It would not be for an application to define such strings for
> a third party library.)
In my opinion, the `Lb` _mdoc_ feature is not properly orthogonalized.
It both (a) "semantically tags" its argument as a library object and (b)
directs the package to undertake textual replacement.
At the time _mdoc_ was designed, it seems that purpose (b) was regarded as
much more important than (a), because _mdoc_ was developed specifically for
BSD Unix and its "make world" approach to system development; the opportunity
to mandate standardized spellings for all sorts of things, including names of
operating system releases, standards documents, and, as noted here, system
libraries.
Nowadays, purpose (a) seems to be ascendant, and I have seen _mandoc_(1)
maintainer and _mdoc_ advocate Ingo Schwarze repeatedly lament the
desynchronization problems and poor maintainability of the uniform spelling
aspect of the package's design.
> Could this warning perhaps be restricted to use of the .Lb macro in sections
> where it would be expected to be expanded with system library details?
Hmm. How do you suggest that the package is going to know that a section--I
assume you mean a `Sh` section--is going to mention only system libraries?
Does the man page author need to tell it somehow, perhaps via a macro
argument?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66410>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
