From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [188.72.220.29])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4PIjYCA006501
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Tue, 25 May 2010 12:45:34 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (localhost.spoerlein.net [IPv6:::1])
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o4PIjXik061324
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Tue, 25 May 2010 20:45:33 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=spoerlein.net;
	s=dkim200908; t=1274813133;
	bh=z722MC9B/NEQmZelqlti+vvSo2TzzczEyam3YTL28mc=;
	h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:
	 Content-Type:In-Reply-To;
	b=puo7SIi4CyuOde8Oi+gY85DBnUE9AIVp1OHk2DK5lJYtOVkCfMq/lcrKAGTwT3r/l
	 2o0Zr81vc/X3wtFOBjw9DKcCXV9oTCT4U9ay4LiN0dUOZxOjs9+/1Yd1lg5aCyXs8p
	 Szyx7vgjUmiA2ERHw5MavW2iXnMOiafF/vfQqYT4=
Received: (from uqs@localhost)
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o4PIjXZN061323
	for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Tue, 25 May 2010 20:45:33 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 20:45:33 +0200
From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>
To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: mandoc vs Xo in It argument
Message-ID: <20100525184533.GC88504@acme.spoerlein.net>
References: <20100525155838.GA49421@acme.spoerlein.net>
 <20100525175653.GI8074@bramka.kerhand.co.uk>
 <20100525182706.GA7295@iris.usta.de>
X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss
Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100525182706.GA7295@iris.usta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Tue, 25.05.2010 at 20:27:06 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Jason, hi Ulrich,
> 
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:56:29PM +0100:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:58:38PM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> 
> >> while further cleaning up the FreeBSD manpages, I'm now at a point where
> >> I have to fix the Xo/Xc fallout. Why exactly is this allowed:
> >> 
> >> .Bl -tag -width indent -compact
> >> .It Xo
> >> .Ft void
> >> .Xc
> 
> Because i implemented plain .It Xo support long ago.  ;-)

You bastard! ;]

> >> And is there a better way to rewrite this other than putting all the
> >> arguments to .It on the same line (which quickly runs over 80 columns).
> 
> Hmmm, probably you will not need to rewrite that code at all.
> On the other hand, the .Ta in the middle of the .Xo/.Xc does
> look a bit ugly.  But i also have some code written that is
> nearly finished, improving support for badly nested blocks, like
> 
> .Ao ao
> .Bo bo
> .Ac ac
> .Bc bc
> 
> and 
> 
> .Aq aq Bo bo
> .Bc bc
> 
> So, when Kristaps is finished with .Ta, let's see whether i can
> put the pieces together and get
> 
> .It it Xo xo
> .Ta ta
> .Xc xc
> 
> supported too.
> If you are lucky, it may take a week or two, if you are less lucky,
> perhaps after the c2k10 hackathon, that is mid-July.

Sounds good! So now I know that support may be coming eventually, I
don't need to rewrite these parts of the manpages. Yay!

> >> People really seem to like these three column tables ...
> 
> Sure, people are really creative, with .Bl -column in particular.

Or mdoc in general. They really want stuff to look a certain way, no
matter what the underlying structure is ...


Anyway, thanks for info and let's see what the upcoming release brings!

Uli
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv