Hi Alex,
At 2022-09-07T00:13:18+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> "Those types are not 'abstract'--they are as real as int and float."
>> -- guess who?
>
> :p By the way, an actual link to the context of the quote would be
> nice. I've only found copies of the quote without context. Where did
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 07:19:22AM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> The 4.2BSD provenance is particularly valuable, in that it illustrates
> how the terminology was retained
Earlier I replied and showed a snapshot of the history.
Contemporary:
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi
All Sections
Hi Colin!
On 12/12/22 14:39, Colin Watson wrote:
[Sorry for the delay; a succession of business travel, holidays, and
Covid have together eaten up much of my time recently.]
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 01:28:12AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 11/17/22 01:06, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
I thin
[Sorry for the delay; a succession of business travel, holidays, and
Covid have together eaten up much of my time recently.]
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 01:28:12AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 11/17/22 01:06, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think the adoption of the term (sub)chapter has a po
Hi Alex,
At 2022-12-11T17:40:10+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> This is a gentle ping about my terminological reforms about manual
> page chapters.
[...]
> Hi Colin, Ingo, and Branden,
> On 11/17/22 01:06, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think the adoption of the term (sub)chapter has a potenti
Hi Doug,
On 12/12/22 01:34, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
A nice property of "section" is that it's recursive--applies to any
level of a hierarchy--so you don't have to struggle to keep
level-specific terminology straight.
Doug
Hmm, since the concerns expressed by Ralph seem to be at least as itchy
Hi Michael,
> I don't see a good reason to break an established term and instead
> suggest to follow the above and s/chapter/section/g.
man(1), apropos(1), and other commands use -s to specify sections and
many finger muscles won't change now.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
A nice property of "section" is that it's recursive--applies to any
level of a hierarchy--so you don't have to struggle to keep
level-specific terminology straight.
Doug
On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 2:21 PM Alejandro Colomar
wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 12/11/22 20:05, Michael Haardt wrote:
> > I ju
I just checked what is easily available to me:
v7 calls them sections in intro pages, but chapters in man(1) and man(7).
Celerity Computing UNIX (looks like a BSD port) calls them sections in
intro pages and man(7), but chapter in manv(7) (dtroff version of man(7)).
SunOS 4.1.1 calls them sectio
> Admittedly, it's hard to defend my proposal as _necessary_. Especially after
> the world has lived for decades with the ambiguity of having chapters as
> sections and sections also as... sections.
Well, one are the volume sections and the other manpage sections. :)
Originally, Unix documenta
Hi Michael,
On 12/11/22 20:05, Michael Haardt wrote:
I just checked what is easily available to me: >
v7 calls them sections in intro pages, but chapters in man(1) and man(7).
Celerity Computing UNIX (looks like a BSD port) calls them sections in
intro pages and man(7), but chapter in manv(7) (
Hi!
This is a gentle ping about my terminological reforms about manual page
chapters.
Cheers,
Alex
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: Chapters of the manual (was: Bug#1018737: /usr/bin/rst2man:
rst2man: .TH 5th field shouldn't be empty)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 01:28:12
Hi Ralph,
On 11/17/22 12:58, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Hi Alejandro,
'chapter' definitely makes more sense, at least considering the manual
as a book. Since it seems to have been in general use in the past,
it's not so much of a breaking change to start using it now again.
Yes it is a breaking.
Hi Alejandro,
> 'chapter' definitely makes more sense, at least considering the manual
> as a book. Since it seems to have been in general use in the past,
> it's not so much of a breaking change to start using it now again.
Yes it is a breaking. This is a terrible idea. Colin Watson's man(1)
r of the page seems to be Michael Haardt; his last commit to the
man-pages is from 2015, so I guess his email is still active. Maybe he can
comment. I also CCed aeb and mtk, as they maintained the pages before me and
may know if that term was in use at the time.
Cheers,
Alex
> On 9/7/22 00:13, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > > I've seen sporadically references to the numbers as chapters, probably
> > > > from when the manual was a proper book, but that term seems to have
> > > > fallen in use.
Unix Programmer's Manual (4.2 BSD) August, 1983
Volume 1
Chapter I: Comman
Hi Andries!
On 11/17/22 00:40, Andries E. Brouwer wrote:
On 9/7/22 00:13, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
I've seen sporadically references to the numbers as chapters, probably
from when the manual was a proper book, but that term seems to have
fallen in use.
Unix Programmer's Manual (4.2 BSD) Aug
Hi Branden!
On 9/7/22 00:13, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
I've seen sporadically references to the numbers as chapters, probably
from when the manual was a proper book, but that term seems to have
fallen in use.
I don't recall seeing this. While not my preference, I would regard it
as an excusabl
Hi Branden,
On 9/6/22 22:42, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
Hi Alex,
At 2022-09-06T21:43:28+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 9/6/22 21:35, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Most if not all readers of manual pages will know the meaning of
those little numbers. The few that don't, are probably using
Hi Alex,
At 2022-09-06T21:43:28+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 9/6/22 21:35, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Most if not all readers of manual pages will know the meaning of
> > those little numbers. The few that don't, are probably using
> > man(1) for the first time in their lives, and i
On 9/6/22 21:35, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Most if not all readers of manual pages will know the meaning of
those little numbers. The few that don't, are probably using man(1) for
the first time in their lives, and it will kindly hint that they should
read man(1),
Of course, I referred to:
Hi Branden,
On 9/6/22 21:13, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
Hi Doug & Alex,
At 2022-08-30T17:14:31-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
An empty field conveys as much information as the uninformative
default, "Miscellaneous Information Manual", with less clutter. I
recommend abolishing the default.
I'm
Hi Doug & Alex,
At 2022-08-30T17:14:31-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
> An empty field conveys as much information as the uninformative
> default, "Miscellaneous Information Manual", with less clutter. I
> recommend abolishing the default.
I'm reluctant to do this because it breaks the orthogonalit
Hi Doug,
On 8/30/22 23:14, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
An empty field conveys as much information as the uninformative
default, "Miscellaneous Information Manual", with less clutter. I
recommend abolishing the default.
Agree, the section number already provides a good default information
(and for
Hi Dmitry,
On 9/5/22 18:42, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
Hi Alejandro!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 09:14:26PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Package: python3-docutils
Version: 0.17.1+dfsg-2
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/rst2man
Tags: upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: alx.manpa...@gmail.com, groff@gnu.org, Quent
An empty field conveys as much information as the uninformative
default, "Miscellaneous Information Manual", with less clutter. I
recommend abolishing the default.
Doug
Package: python3-docutils
Version: 0.17.1+dfsg-2
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/rst2man
Tags: upstream
X-Debbugs-Cc: alx.manpa...@gmail.com, groff@gnu.org, Quentin Monnet
Hi,
When rst2man has no information to generate the 5th field to the
.TH macro (the one that sets the title line, i.e., th
27 matches
Mail list logo
