On 2026-06-19 16:17 -04:00 EDT, "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <[email protected]> wrote: > Alexander Ziaee <[email protected]> writes: >> @@ -104,6 +104,10 @@ The >> utility is expected to be >> .St -p1003.2 >> compatible. >> +.Pp >> +The >> +.Fl v >> +option is an extension to that specification. > > This is not the wording we normally use for these cases.
We use in in rm(1), but we do not have a style guide and I am not aware of a consistent pattern. What would you prefer? Best, Alex
