On 2/7/22 22:28, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > It's an open question, and there is an unresolved difference of opinion > between me and Ingo Schwarze (mandoc maintainer) about a somewhat > broader issue. > > Here's the background from last August[1]. Reading all 3 messages in > the thread is recommended.
Yes, I remember having read that discussion. :p > Right now the second argument to `MR` is mandatory (did I forget to put > in a style warning?--no, I didn't). Ah, I didn't yet run CHECKSTYLE, since that page I'm writing is far from finished. But good to know. >> And then there's the option of using .B, or .I, but as we know, >> there's no consensus on which of them should be used. > > Right. I don't see any solutions for this apart from making `MR` more > permissive, supporting "semantic tag classes" (my pie-in-the-sky idea > above), or bloating the macro name space for a something of limited and > specialized function, and the last is my least favorite by a long shot. > > If someone else has a better imagination, please speak up. > I think the solution in this case is to chose one of .I and .B, depending on your taste. Thanks, Alex -- Alejandro Colomar Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
