On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 19:22:11 +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > |Please, can people at least *skim* through mdoc.samples(7) *once*... > | > |It's best to use default width. Yes, some option .It may require a > |line break, but it gives consistent formatting across man pages. > | > | .Bl -tag -width Fl > | > |If for some reason you absolutely must tailor the formatting for the > |contents of the list, don't do this cargo cult padding of "-width" > |that doesn't even work to begin with, b/c PostScript and other > |backends do exist. > | > |What you meant to say was really: > | > | .Bl -tag -width ".Fl b Ar bootstr" > | .It Fl b Ar bootstr > > It does not really matter, as (1) NetBSD uses mandoc not (g)roff, > and (2) NetBSD is not interested in mdoc references,
For (1) the complete correct statement is: NetBSD man(1) command uses mandoc(1) that can interpret mdoc(7) macros. The same manpage source can also be fed to groff to get PostScript output. And I wish we also had something more modern than xman(1) that can interpret ditroff(7) output from groff to render manpages under X with vector fonts etc. As for (2) - I have no idea where you might have gotten that impression. > point out nonetheless that doing the above, in the original > mdoc(7) macros, performs a full evaluation of ".Fl b Ar bootstr"; Yes, and that's what mdoc(7) explicitly recommends. > that is, the "b" flag is "defined" twice. I don't understand what "defined" is supposed to mean in this context. -uwe
