From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4167 invoked from network); 31 Jan 1997 17:45:51 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 31 Jan 1997 17:45:51 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA23284; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:28:44 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:53:57 -0500 (EST) From: Zefram Message-Id: <4535.199701311655@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Man pages missing To: brown@ftms.COM (Vidiot) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:55:22 +0000 (GMT) Cc: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <199701311611.KAA17450@ftms.ftms.com> from "Vidiot" at Jan 31, 97 10:11:18 am X-Loop: zefram@dcs.warwick.ac.uk X-Stardate: [-31]8813.52 X-US-Congress: Moronic fuckers Content-Type: text Resent-Message-ID: <"MvmHX2.0.iA5.aEYyo"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/662 X-Loop: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Vidiot wrote: >This is not true. There are many man pages that are not authoritative, >sh and csh being examples. The sh and csh man pages that I've seen are pretty complete. > The man page only needs to be >authoritative iff there is not a separate document that expands the man page. Ah, but the man page SHOULD be authoritative anyway. > >They are meant to be a quick reference to the syntax of a command or an >option. For details and/or examples, expanded manuals are used. In the case of zsh, the man page is a quick referenece to all the details too. This is ideal. -zefram