At 2023-11-09T19:31:39-0500, James K. Lowden wrote: > (I don't like "Sy =", for logical and asthetic reasons. Logically, > it's not a "symbol", in that it doesn't stand for anything but itself.
(Careful now, or the shambling zombie of Jacques Derrida is going to
kick down the door and subject us all to a fate worse than being
subjected to necrocannibalism: a lecture in semiotics.)
But, yeah, I don't what mdoc(7) means by `Sy`, either. It seems to be
about as loosely denoted as `Tn`.
> And I don't want it to appear in boldface, because it needs no
> emphasis.)
That's in contrast to the conventions of synopsis as elsewhere
documented, though.
groff_man_style(7):
.B [text]
Set text in bold. If no argument is given, a one‐line
input trap is planted; text on the next line, which can be
further formatted with a macro, is set in bold.
Use bold for literal portions of syntax synopses, for
command‐line options in running text, and for literals
that are major topics of the subject under discussion; for
example, this page uses bold for macro, string, and
register names. In an .EX/.EE example of interactive I/O
(such as a shell session), set only user input in bold.
[...]
Observe what is not prescribed for setting in bold or italics
above: elements of “synopsis language” such as ellipses and
brackets around options; proper names and adjectives; titles of
anything other than major works of literature; identifiers for
standards documents or technical reports such as CSTR #54,
RFC 1918, Unicode 13.0, or POSIX.1‐2017; acronyms; and
occurrences after the first of a technical term.
Yes, that's man(7) instead of mdoc(7), but while the macro languages for
constructing man pages may differ, their output generally should not, in
any way that would affect the reader's understanding of the material.
Regards,
Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
