Hi,
Humm wrote:
> > I think we should either use .MR without a number, or use .I/.B,
> > probably .I/.B, since there's no manual page reference going on.
> > From there, man(7) tradition seems to prescribe .B, and groff(1)
> > style seems to prescribe .I...
>
> I think -man tradition quite clearly
Hi Humm,
> Personally, I’d much rather see a KWIC permuted index of the NAME
> sections. (At least some of mentioned Programmer’s Manuals have that
> too.)
I agree. I used to read the troff-typeset man pages which accompanied Sun
servers as a row of heavy folders and the permuted index was an e
Quoth G. Branden Robinson:
Why not accept an empty second argument and puncuation?
.MR gmtime "" ()
That looks too much like cleverness to me, but I suppose there is a
certain amount of subjectivity to these things.
Huh, doesn’t look very clever to me. Sure, subjective.
I don’t ge
At 2022-02-07T22:08:34+, Humm wrote:
> > Thus if you wanted to talk in a section 2 or 3 page about some C
> > function name that has a man page to which you'd already referred, you
> > would write, for example.
> >
> > The
> > .MR gmtime\c
> > () function converts the calendar time
> > .I
Quoth G. Branden Robinson:
Right now the second argument to `MR` is mandatory (did I forget to put
in a style warning?--no, I didn't). If I were to loosen the syntax to
permit an empty second argument, I would have the macro _not_ supply any
parentheses, and if you wanted abutting punctuation, I
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 recom
Quoth Alejandro Colomar (man-pages):
For functions, although perhaps looking fine, it’s semantically wrong.
The parentheses when referring to a function approximate its parameter
or argument list. Man page references, and thus uses of .MR, always
include a number.
Tradition seems to differ:
Hi Alex!
At 2022-02-07T18:34:15+0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> How would you use .MR on non-man[23] (e.g., man1) pages to refer to
> the same topic of the manual page? I mean, how would you refer to
> groff(1) from within groff.1?
>
> .MR groff
> .MR groff 1
>
> ?
Quoth Alejandro Colomar (man-pages):
How would you use .MR on non-man[23] (e.g., man1) pages to refer to the
same topic of the manual page? I mean, how would you refer to groff(1)
from within groff.1?
.MR groff
.MR groff 1
?
If you omit the number, you get empty parentheses, which for man[23]
On 2/7/22 20:41, Humm wrote:
> For functions, although perhaps looking fine, it’s semantically wrong.
> The parentheses when referring to a function approximate its parameter
> or argument list. Man page references, and thus uses of .MR, always
> include a number.
Tradition seems to differ:
Hi Branden,
How would you use .MR on non-man[23] (e.g., man1) pages to refer to the
same topic of the manual page? I mean, how would you refer to groff(1)
from within groff.1?
.MR groff
.MR groff 1
?
If you omit the number, you get empty parentheses, which for man[23]
pages looks good (they ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
