Re: OT: Vt vs. Ft/Fn (WAS: Giving up on emulating SYNOPSIS vspace.)

[Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:13:32AM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> mdoc.samples documents `Vt' as doing funny business in SYNOPSIS, not
> `Va' (wtf?).  From what I understand, Vt's the conventional way of
> putting variables in the SYNOPSIS.  `F' macros are certainly not the
> way.
> 
> jmc, wiz, any suggestions and/or observations?  I like Ingo's
> notation of `Vt/Va'.  I've never seen it before (mdocml's manuals
> use `Vt' standalone as suggested in mdoc.samples), but you know
> better.

I found some examples in libelf manpages (from FreeBSD) and a few in
random places. More .Vt usage like groff's mdoc(7) describes.

> I think we can take this opportunity, in mdoc.7, to specify how
> variables should get documented in the SYNOPSIS.  And what about the
> following:
> 
>  - CPP defines?
>  - structs Vt's?  (the `Bd' was used in one of your examples)
> 
> We have `Dv' for defines, but that doesn't help me with wanting to
> print out `.Dv #define FOOBAR'.

rpcgen(1) actually uses Dv in that case, but it's the only occurrence.
For the name of the struct, using Vt is fine, but for the struct
definition including members, there currently is no better tag than
Bd, which at least keeps it readable. Do we want to extend mdoc?
 Thomas
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv