Re: Tagged parameters

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 2023-08-15 07:39, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>
> Yes, it's worth doing something... here's my go.
>
> +Tags the named parameters.  Tags only exist to mark the parameter for
> +the user's own purposes: the set of tagged parameters can be queried
> +using `tt(typeset -t)'.  They have no further special meaning to the
> +shell.  This flag has a different meaning when used with tt(-f); see above.
>   )

That is so much better.  We go from a conveyed information score of -10 
to +90 in one effort.  Since there is no end to little edits (which have 
an asymptotic convergence on perfection), I'd tweak it:

+Tags the named parameters.  Tags only exist to 'flag' the parameter for
+the user's own purposes -- the list of tagged parameters can be queried
+using `tt(typeset -t)'.  Tags have no other use.  Note that the `-t` flag has a different meaning when used with tt(-f); see above.
  )

'flag' because that's the word used lower down

'list' instead of 'set' because set sounds too mathematical

'no other use' is simpler than 'no further special meaning to the shell' -- there is no other, not just no other *special* -- it makes one wonder what an un-special meaning might be.  And 'to the shell' makes one wonder what a use *outside the shell* might possibly be.

'-t' just keeps things specific.

And I'd add 'Note that' simply to flag the otherwise usage.  It's polite.

I dream of a manual that is designed to inform the one seeking information rather than display the knowledge of the writer to himself.