[TUHS] Re: custom NS and NE man(7) macros

[TUHS] Re: custom NS and NE man(7) macros

[Douglas McIlroy]

> You didn't say, but I reckon this is a survey of man(7) macros that
> might be considered extensions?

My presentation was too cute for my own good. I pointed out the
consistency of xS/xE for various x. I apologized for EX/EE, which
varied from that form (as UR/UE did more recently), and I
questioned OQ/CQ, which utterly breaks it.

The intended point was that one should have a strong rationale
for deviating from established custom, and thereby fostering
mental overload.

Doug

[TUHS] Re: custom NS and NE man(7) macros

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

Hi Doug,

At 2023-09-26T09:38:07-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
> > You didn't say, but I reckon this is a survey of man(7) macros that
> > might be considered extensions?
> 
> My presentation was too cute for my own good. I pointed out the
> consistency of xS/xE for various x.

Oh!

> I apologized for EX/EE, which varied from that form

It seems then that we are owed an apology from other quarters for
`EQ`/`EN`.  ;-)

> (as UR/UE did more recently),

There is also `MT`/`ME`, another groff 1.20 extension.

> and I questioned OQ/CQ, which utterly breaks it.

I proposed `QO`/`QC`, but yes, the same is true of that letter ordering.

> The intended point was that one should have a strong rationale
> for deviating from established custom, and thereby fostering
> mental overload.

Fair.  I'm fine with renaming my proposed quotation macros `QS`/`QE`.

Something I'm still mulling over is how one would specify to these new
macros that they should not perform a break.  Or maybe they should
perform no break by default.  That would seem to be the more common
expected case.

Regards,
Branden

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