From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by ewsd; Wed Mar 14 23:34:53 EDT 2018 Received: (qmail 5874 invoked by uid 1001); 14 Mar 2018 20:34:51 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:34:51 -0700 From: Kurt H Maier To: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9front] Argument lists in Plan 9 man pages Message-ID: <20180315033451.GA89773@wopr> Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: <8ADDB08FEC580BCDA1A069F2B6469597@5ess.inri.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ADDB08FEC580BCDA1A069F2B6469597@5ess.inri.net> List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: open-source scripting GPU layer On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:57:55PM -0400, sl@stanleylieber.com wrote: > > I agree with Tufte, at least so far as this applies to man pages. > Flag options should be presented as a table. Counterpoint: Man pages should provide a full and well-articulated explanation of the software. Tufte's table advocacy is more appropriate for a 'usage' function that might describe invocation to a user who passed a help flag or fucked up the initial attempt. Tufte's USA Today stuff is fine for sales brochures and nutrition information labels -- man pages should be the developer speaking to the user, and that happens in English. My commitment to this opinion is insufficiently intense to cause me to take any action beyond whining on the internet. khm