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 o56Ngt7q008799 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by kerhand.co.uk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 1275867773.i9uMAxcEJIeqeiHu for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 00:42:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 00:42:29 +0100 From: Jason McIntyre To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Giving up on emulating SYNOPSIS vspace. Message-ID: <20100606234253.GA24356@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> References: <4C0C2CC4.3040306@bsd.lv> 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: <4C0C2CC4.3040306@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:18:28AM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote: > Hi, > > As you may know from the commits, I've been trying to normal-form > groff's SYNOPSIS behaviour regarding vertical spacing. I have failed. > Anything but using "normal" SYNOPSIS macros produces catshit. > > If you really want to cover groff's behaviour, send me patches and I'll > find behaviour that breaks them. Instead I propose making consistent > rules out of observed, normative behaviour, then going from there. > > *Please give feedback on this*: the SYNOPSIS is very important. I will > hold off on implementing my suggestion until I have some oks. It's a > trivial implementation and will result in some nice cleanup, and is > easily documented. > > Note that I'll only discuss 'function' manual sections in this email, > i.e., Fn/Ft/etc., not Nm/Op/etc, which is much easier. You'll see what > I mean. Nm/Op is more straightforward (let's leave this discussion for > later). > > First, I propose that SYNOPSIS sections be grouped into the following > macro sets, > > .In > .Ft/Fn ("combo", i.e., one after the other) > .Ft/Fo (same) > .Fo > .Fn > .Fd > > with rules as follows. Any macro/combo of these sets will be preceded > and proceeded by a newline. It doesn't matter what the hell comes > before or after or whether these are line macros or not. > > Next, non-like pair-wise sets will be separated by a single vertical space. > > Lastly, like pairwise Ft/Fn, Ft/Fo, Fo, and Fn are separated by a single > vertical space. > > That's it. Simple, no? > > Please let me know ASAP, as I want to tag version 1.10.1 and move on > with PostScript and Ingo's block-breaking patches. > > Thanks, > > Kristaps i propose you do whatever you think makes sense: a simple synopsis with workable rules is preferable to a bug-compatible groff. i know you don;t want to talk about the simpler cases but i have to add: can we make synopsis nice please? Bk/Ek is broken, and we need a nice synopsis. are we far away? let's take this from openbsd's isakmpd.8: isakmpd [-46adKLnSTv] [-c config-file] [-D class=level] [-f fifo] [-i pid-file] [-l packetlog-file] [-N udpencap-port] [-p listen-port] [-R report-file] i'd like this, by default: isakmpd [-46adKLnSTv] [-c config-file] [-D class=level] [-f fifo] [-i pid-file] [-l packetlog-file] [-N udpencap-port] [-p listen-port] [-R report-file] ignore any crappy Bk/Ek stuff. just format nicely please. it's a real killer for mandoc right now, i feel. by the way, it's how groff currently formats it. i've no idea if it's coincidence or sth else. jmc -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv