On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:36:39 +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote: > Both styles are used, but I argue that the former fails to distinguish > between > $ program 'args in one shell word' > and > $ program one arg per shell word > > It's a minor thing, imho, but perhaps we can decide for one and stick to > it throughout the tree? > > Triple dots also make it immediately clear that many arguments may > follow, no matter what the "arg"ument is named.
I agree, and as jmc@ points out, .Ar will emit "file ..." when used without an explicit argument. > Here's one examplatory diff for timeout(1). > > Feedback? > > Index: timeout.1 > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/timeout/timeout.1,v > retrieving revision 1.3 > diff -u -p -r1.3 timeout.1 > --- timeout.1 4 Sep 2021 11:58:31 -0000 1.3 > +++ timeout.1 29 Oct 2022 20:53:05 -0000 > @@ -41,14 +41,14 @@ > .Op Fl -preserve-status > .Ar duration > .Ar command > -.Op Ar args > +.Op Ar arg ... > .Sh DESCRIPTION > The > .Nm > utility executes > .Ar command , > with any > -.Ar args , > +.Ar arg ... , The change to the DESCRIPTION seems a little awkward to me. I understand you want to match the SYNOPSIS but in this case it comes at the expense of readability. Personally, I'd prefer: .Ar arg Ns s , > and kills it if it is still running after the > specified > .Ar duration . - todd
