From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,FSL_HELO_FAKE, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 21659 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2021 16:23:58 -0000 Received: from bsd.lv (HELO mandoc.bsd.lv) (66.111.2.12) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Sep 2021 16:23:57 -0000 Received: from fantadrom.bsd.lv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 8b1924f9 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:23:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-wm1-f42.google.com (mail-wm1-f42.google.com [209.85.128.42]) by mandoc.bsd.lv (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 6eae714e for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm1-f42.google.com with SMTP id s24so2294264wmh.4 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 09:23:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=iVnZWOoT5xGmqu8c3jkPuqZsWzDf9mtCR0xRr9nVk28=; b=Bg1rPVKO6QjEhbhXI10ai5/pE8FKjgwBHJ3Dj/OqMlWKw7hu91Hjh2hlWPCXCvVg+A +Uh442ItTaiFKBvll1T021avn5ifTewPl8SboD2mZkBmxXG5WFG6zOO8/QLRV4AYjiSI 4H/QUHX2ssC2r3VjCq26uh5eRyWBkjPkeO0qsb6Urnyn4Gpr+KANlv94kPz4nincN7Z9 Zm/O/4LqJLKEPOQqCvk912O7zVJjxFG5lgtqH499dpsEESiuXL5AmI3RDF9xl/vgmg2u Qquo0gkhrEkPcL94c76GmnmiEb5gAuFcJ9HIR+MMgUfjI3Opqvwmha3OJcR4fM0j53aM 1U2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=iVnZWOoT5xGmqu8c3jkPuqZsWzDf9mtCR0xRr9nVk28=; b=T1CACkbxt90RurO9z3J7phJmDHfMlaqAmqkDJ5ZCAK2QurCEwA26EPgTE1SK6zhIL1 IsXlqk3ho0trHIuQZWyxxShAWNScauRp19QTz4nQ0CVTMNvU3qjJfglUFd/E2KTer2fG KyKQlBKUhi9i6eV7cwv2TTj28Ocma7qAVNxiWyzE8K1EkyI6KUH48GPZ2fw31rRvqtWM UX3lPArnEDKi/HQ4lfXqavGDLcMQOV3e3oXBRHxvFSFULUKS8w9re6ObUSzMqKL1p5EG cQBg+LMj8pcwpk/cxtK3n5YHTr/KkWmXT067pF8mvbZ9kbljqVudAWyN2N+j+2VeoRok Y0Ow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318nq4pybPrjhCi6vdN+lZGMkblHxGd9uwV+n23ZtQysNLELcw8 e63rSkaM3QhiBW8Mj4sGi6Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxH5Qx13FSWe1RcPFRG1UIQKBjALKcOxLekzX9TDSxQkwXMZFKjBiWDSrZsllbhOevdSFqlKg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:40c4:: with SMTP id m4mr11116719wmh.100.1632932632292; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 09:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmail.com (cpc92314-cmbg19-2-0-cust515.5-4.cable.virginm.net. [82.11.186.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l21sm283322wmh.31.2021.09.29.09.23.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 09:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:23:49 +0100 From: Raf Czlonka To: Ingo Schwarze Cc: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Clarification needed in regards to "WARNING: blank line in fill mode, using .sp" Message-ID: References: X-Mailinglist: mandoc-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mandoc.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hi Ingo, On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 04:10:00PM BST, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > [...] > > If you wonder *why* the fact described by a message is problematic > and what you might do about it, please consult the mandoc(1) manual, > in this case: > > blank line in fill mode, using .sp > (mdoc) The meaning of blank input lines is only well-defined in non-fill > mode: In fill mode, line breaks of text input lines are not supposed to > be significant. However, for compatibility with groff, blank lines in > fill mode are formatted like sp requests. To request a paragraph break, > use Pp instead of a blank line. Sure, I did read it - it was also the reason why I've mentioned Pp. > Do *not* try to guess what to do about a message from the message itself > unless you are sure you fully understand its meaning and rationale. > > That said, note that this message says ", using .sp", *not* "consider > using" or "better use". I guess one might read this as "Hey! I'm using .sp, and so should you!" ;^) > > This seem to be contrary to what the mdoc(7) manual page says: > > > > Many aspects of the basic syntax of the mdoc language are > > based on the roff(7) language; see the LANGUAGE SYNTAX and > > MACRO SYNTAX sections in the roff(7) manual for details, > > in particular regarding comments, escape sequences, whitespace, > > and quoting. However, using roff(7) requests in mdoc > > documents is discouraged; mandoc(1) supports some of them > > merely for backward compatibility. > > > > I'm obviously talking about the "discouraged" here as there's no > > backward compatibility to speak of - as mentioned earlier, this is > > an mdoc(7)-formatted manual page. > > Yes. Using .sp in mdoc(7) - and even in man(7)! - is usually bad > style. > > > Given that '.sp' is nowhere to be found in mdoc(7) and is only > > present in roff(7), perhaps the warning should mention '.Pp' macro > > instead? > > Absolutely not, that would be a lie. Wenn you do have a blank line > in fill mode, the parser uses .sp as the fallback, *not* .Pp. OK, a different, perhaps an easier, question then. In the most obvious, nine times out of ten, scenario where a blank line separates two sentences, shouldn't .Pp be used instead of .sp, given that both the latter, as well as blank lines, are considered bad style? Regards, Raf -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mandoc.bsd.lv