Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

hello, > I would like to investigate the possibility of using Markdown as an alternate > format for UNIX man-pages. > (Cf. https://github.com/marcastel/marcastel/discussions/7) I used POD (perldoc) for decades and i'm very fan of pandoc for many years now (i use it for many things from bills to

Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

Le Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 02:09:18PM +1000, John Gardner a écrit : > Markdown has one feature: readability. That's literally it. IMHO, the mdoc dialect is easier to read when it comes to describe functions, types and so on ... markdown on the other hand is quicker to write. regards marc

Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

> Mhmm, what `pandoc` provides is quite nice, and I have successfully > used it to produce technical manuals in various formats. pandoc is vastly superior to all their concurrents (except Rmarkdown which seems to be interesting but i haven't tested by myself) but the problem is many people use oth

Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

> On 21 Apr 2021, at 18:56, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > 1. Sorry, Markdown is a *terrible* choice. Which dialect? It's simply not > standardized enough. > It's also semantically rather weak, especially near tables. I was expecting that one :-) Let me put differently. Markdown is the style.

Re: Release Candidate 1.23.0.rc1

On 4/10/21, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > I share Bjarni's inclinations on this point, but there's a nearly > 50-year tradition of composing roff documents without sweating the small > stuff. According to our troff(1) page and as the saying goes, "most of > it" (warnings) "is small stuff". Agreed

Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

> On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:35, Marc Chantreux wrote: > > There is no way you'll manage requests like .In, .Fn .Vt, .Ft, .Fn, .Op > with commonmark. Food for thought… though in my opinion the usage strings and the synopsis are like a table of contents, automatically generated. How about: #usa

Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

> On 22 Apr 2021, at 18:37, JM Marcastel wrote: > >> On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:35, Marc Chantreux > > wrote: >> >> There is no way you'll manage requests like .In, .Fn .Vt, .Ft, .Fn, .Op >> with commonmark. > > > Food for thought… though in my opinion the usage strings an

Problem with mom's .PDF_WWW_LINK macro

Here's a mom source file I cut down from contrib/mom/examples/mom-pdf.mom in the groff distribution, from a very recent git pull. .PAPER Letter .PRINTSTYLE TYPESET .TITLE "Testing mom's PDF_WWW_LINK macro" .char \[pdfmom] \*[BD]pdfmom\*[PREV] .char \[-P-p] \*[BD]\-P\-p\*[PREV] .char \[-

Re: Modernising UNIX manpages.

> On 22 Apr 2021, at 09:35, Marc Chantreux wrote: > > *But* if there is a tool that just read a code written in (name your preferred > langage) and write the mandoc output (eventually use comments for the > other parts), i really would give this tool a try. Perhaps Markdown is not the approp

Re: Problem with mom's .PDF_WWW_LINK macro

(Peter, I CCed this to the groff list since my original message went there, and this way the resolution is in the mailing list archives.) I tried your wonky-char.mom version with the groff that I built (GNU groff version 1.23.0.rc1.340-0dab6, from a recent git pull) and got exactly the same proble