From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from kerhand.co.uk (_smtpd@82-69-137-214.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.137.214]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4Q6uBYU028014 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 00:56:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by kerhand.co.uk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 1274856969.heYtZgG8DmHdokG2 for ; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:55:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 07:55:45 +0059 From: Jason McIntyre To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: .Li hiccup (and \*(Pu issue) Message-ID: <20100526065609.GB28547@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> References: <20100525065543.GB8074@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <4BFBCEBB.4070205@bsd.lv> <20100525141839.GG8074@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <4BFC3639.8030409@bsd.lv> <20100525232818.GA29800@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: <20100525232818.GA29800@iris.usta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:28:18AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > > > % egrep 'Li [:.;] ' `cat manuals.txt ` > > usr.sbin/bgpd/bgpd.conf.5:.Ar as-number Ns Li : Ns Ar local , > > Cargo-cult alert: Why not just > > .Ar as-number : Ns Ar local , > > That seems to work with all our formatters, and i don't see why > it shouldn't work, or why we should put any more macros in there. > well, my reading of that example would be the author wants `:' in a literal font. but after reading your mail, i'm not sure whether you think that should be the result or not. that is, i don;t know whether you think i should change the expr.1 example and the \*(Pu example, or whether you think mandoc itself should be changed. can you clarify this please? (then if it's a mandoc change, i can bow out of the discussion ;) but getting back to your example, no matter what was intended, i'd say that your example without Li is much better anyway. Li is a colossal waste of space. > > That said, i think > > .Ar expr1 No : Ar expr2 > > is easier to understand and might look better in variable-width > output - of course, it is currently broken in the same way as > in the .Li, .Fl and .Ar cases, the empty .No is missing from > the syntax tree just like the other ones. > i think the No is needless here too. jmc -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv