Re: [PATCH 04/17] man/curs_add{,_w}ch.3x: Relocate material.

[Thomas Dickey]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 03:59:46PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
...
> This language ultimately comes from addch, where it dates back at least
> to the 20150627 snapshot.  (It's hard for me to trace back before that
> because at around this point each snapshot comprises two commits, one
> which deletes the entire source tree, and one which restores it.)
> If the language should be taken out, that should probably happen in both
> places.

done
 
> One of the more striking examples, to me, is the fact that there are
> _three_ copies of the ACS symbol tables (curs_addch.3x, curs_add_wch.3x,
> and terminfo.tail).  Probably only 2 of those are needed, since WACS_*
> _is_ different, not just using different symbol names, but by featuring
> additional ones.

....yes - the curs_addch.3x and terminfo.tail are more/less the same table.
actually they're sorted differently.
 
> I'm glad you brought this up because I want to propose a solution,
> probably for after the 6.5 release.
> 
> Move any boilerplates, if they aren't parameterized in anything, into
> snippet files, have the man page source files `so`-request them where
> desired, and run soelim(1) (along with the existing sed(1) stuff) in the
> man page installation target.

that could get complicated - depends on how many snippets you have in mind.
 
> I'd also like to see the "install" target become really just an
> "install" target, not something that performs further textual
> transformations.  But achieving that will, I predict, require file
> renames and would be even more disruptive than the foregoing.

yes - it would get in the way of the renaming which is done now
 
> > The X/Open Curses pages put that sort of thing in a separate location,
> > e.g.,
> > 
> > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcurses/intov.html#tag_001_004_003
> > 
> > ...which would be awkward for a manpage
> > (unless one gives in and puts everything in the same manpage).
> 
> It's not a bad idea for the standard to have some kind of foundation
> and/or glossary document, and in implementations of other libraries,
> similar things have been done, like having a section 7 page to cover
> concepts.
> 
> I don't know if ncurses needs anything that heavy.  I would cover the
> commonalities in ncurses.3x, personally.
> 
> > That reminds me of the time that I got mail from someone who thought
> > it was inconvenient to have dialog split into several source files...
> 
> They missed the good old days of having to split up your source files in
> arbitrary places because they stopped fitting in core with the
> compiler.  ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> Branden
> 
> [1] https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses-license.html#ncurses_1_8_5



-- 
Thomas E. Dickey <dickey@invisible-island.net>
https://invisible-island.net

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature