Re: Bk -words badness

[Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>]

Hi Kristaps,

Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 11:18:33AM +0200:

> Ingo, how goes the `Bk' work?

Not.

I was slacking in Bob's garden, then on the plane, then sleeping,
then at work.  Now i'm catching up on my mail.  :-)

> Scanning through mandoc's rendering
> of current manuals, I see a lot of the following sort of breakage:
> 
> .Bk -words
> .Op Fl a Ar b
> .Op Fl a Ar b
> .Op Fl a Ar b
[...]

> Which will, for obvious reasons, continue eternally past rmargin.

Right, that is one of the most annoying problems we still have.

> I have an intuition for how to implement an implied `Bk' for all
> SYNPRETTY blocks: to hook into print_mdoc_node() and set/unset the
> PREKEEP flag depending on the line number as reported in mdoc_node.

Sounds good.

> Would this sort of behaviour satisfy you?  The effect would be:
> 
> <PREKEEP>.Op Fl a Ar b<UNKEEP>
> <PREKEEP>.Op Fl a Ar b<UNKEEP>

Yes, if i understand correctly, that is what groff does.
It also ought to allow almost any desired formatting,
and it is somewhat intuitive:  People are likely to put
on one input line whatever belongs closely together,
even when they don't remember the rule.

> The `Bk' handler would then be responsible for simply setting the
> flag that would be OR'd in print_mdoc_node() for keeps
> (SYNPRETTY|KEEPPRETTY or whatever).
> 
> This way, we can simply say that SYNOPSIS implies a `Bk -words' for
> the entire section (i.e., SYNPRETTY) and that `Bk -words' means that
> contained macro lines aren't space-broken between words.

Yes, you are right, the documentation is also very simple to write
and very simple to understand.

> Thoughts?

[x] Try that!

Yours,
  Ingo
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv