On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:02:19AM +0100, Michael Treibton wrote:
> it doesn't throw it, it abstracts it.
And therein lies the problem, because as I look back over the initial
asciidoc work that I did, I note myself:
Asciidoc's man page driver enforces the three sections of NAME,
SYNOPSIS, and DESCRIPTION, which makes writing generic top-level
descriptions for sections a pain, but see what I've done for the
SYNOPSIS section by simply using "fvwm *" -- I think that'll be
sufficient.
The abstraction point isn't of any use to me---I can't easily control
certain things which are essential to man pages---at least, not
trivially. If I could, say via macros, that almost defeats the point of
this abstraction. As soon as you go away from the abstraction, you've
lost all usefulness of it.
Dominik notes that you lose flexibility this way, and he's spot on.
That's precisely why I don't like these helpful abstractions. Note that
where asciidoc shines for me is having a common format to produce *many*
different outputs; assuming you can live with those outputs being quite
minimal.
> are you saying you agree with mdoc as a good solution to this then?
I'm sticking with it, absolutely! Michael, you don't need to sit there
and show us that asciidoc can do things; we know this. At this point,
you can either try and poke around with mdoc, or not. But I cannot
waste anymore time on this discussion; what is quickly turning into a
polemic.
I get that you don't agree with this decision, but given we've seen
nothing from you other than these sets of emails, I'm starting to wonder
what your point is---either contact Roman to get an understanding of
what he's doing with the documentation, or don't. Either way, that's
how you can best start to help from now on.
This conversation is over.
-- Thomas Adam
--
"Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am
not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
