Re: Should .At 32v rather be [AT&T] UNIX/32V rather than Version 32 AT&T UNIX?

[наб <nabijaczleweli@nabijaczleweli.xyz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3573 bytes --]

Hi!

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 05:13:01PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Using "AT&T UNIX/32V" would seem like an improvement to me because it
> makes clear that "32V" is not a version number.
> 
> Then again, i think printing "Version 7 AT&T UNIX/32V" might be even better
> because some people may not know that 32v is just a port of v7, and it is
> not that much longer.
> 
> You might worry that the "32V" is easy to overlook in "Version 7
> AT&T UNIX/32V".  But i would argue that manual pages need to be
> read attentively in general.  Small differences in wording are often
> crucial, and if a hasty reader misses this particular detail, that's
> unlikely to have dire consequences.
I wouldn't strictly go so far as to say that Version 7 AT&T UNIX/32V
is /better/, per se, since the important distinguishing factor is
slightly short as compared to the rest of the string and common usage
favours implying the Version 7,
but then it /is/ at a, quite prominent, end, and is also correct.
Either's perfectly fine by me.

> The way to make this change is to open a feature request at
>   https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=groff
> unless somebody has already done that, post a message to <groff@gnu.org>
> mentioning that ticket and briefly summarizing the rationale,
> ideally also including the patch at the end to ease review.
> Once that is pushed to the groff git, i will make sure mandoc follows.
Great, thanks for the run-down!

> Nab wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:54:47PM +0200:
> > But the end-goal is to be correct, which I believe the current string
> > is not, and I'm inclined to believe that it was a throwaway decision
> I believe Cynthia Livingston did not usually make "throwaway decisions".
I primarily meant "not giving much thought to something relatively
inconsequential". Much like I thought my phrasing was.

> > nobody remembers
> Cynthia added it in this commit:
> 
> s 00128/00026/00064
> d D 5.3 91/04/20 02:36:13 cael 5 3
> c register usage changes, reorg .St macro
> 
> .\" Ns At macro - AT&T UNIX
> .de At
> .nr cF \\n(.f
> .nr cZ \\n(.s
> .ds aa \&\f\\n(cF\s\\n(cZ
> .if \\n(.$==2 \{\
> .       if "\\$1"32v" \&Version 32V \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa\\$2
> .       if "\\$1"v6"  \&Version 6 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa\\$2
> .       if "\\$1"v7"  \&Version 7 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa\\$2
> .       if "\\$1"V"  \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa\\$2
> .       if "\\$1"V.1"  \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V.1 \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa\\$2
> .\}
> .if \\n(.$==1 \{\
> .       if "\\$1"32v" \&Version 32V \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa
> .       if "\\$1"v6"  \&Version 6 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa
> .       if "\\$1"v7"  \&Version 7 \\*(tNAT&T UNIX\\*(aa
> .       if "\\$1"V"  \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa
> .       if "\\$1"V.1"  \&\\*(tNAT&T\\*(aa System V.1 \\*(tNUNIX\\*(aa
> .\}
> ..
> 
> Did you ask her whether she remembers why she chose these particular
> words?  She is alive for all i know, and was well last time i
> exchanged mail with her.  Then again, maybe this is not really
> important enough to bother her.
I, uh, haven't, if only because I didn't know the SCCS histories
were still available! I had been under the false impression that
CSRG CD#3 was The CSRG CD.
But, no, I don't believe this is important enough, or that,
whatever the reasoning, the final answer to this will change.

> If the wording can be improved, it can be changed.
> 
> Yours,
>   Ingo

Oh, and by the by: does your mutt config somehow latinise your mail, or?

Best,
наб

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]