Re: mandoc: -Tlint: spurious warning about empty IP macro

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi Alex,

At 2022-11-10T11:40:26+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 11/10/22 09:56, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Not really.  .P (or .PP, which I did try) would break the formatting.
> Let's show a bit mre of the current page:
> 
>        •  The underlying filesystem must support ID‐mapped mounts.  Currently,
>           the following filesystems support ID‐mapped mounts:
> 
>           •  xfs(5) (since Linux 5.12)
>           •  ext4(5) (since Linux 5.12)
>           •  FAT (since Linux 5.12)
>           •  btrfs(5) (since Linux 5.15)
>           •  ntfs3 (since Linux 5.15)
>           •  f2fs (since Linux 5.18)
>           •  erofs (since Linux 5.19)
>           •  overlayfs (ID‐mapped lower and upper layers supported
>              since Linux 5.19)
> 
>        •  The mount must not already be ID‐mapped.  This also implies
>           that the ID mapping of a mount cannot be altered.
> 
> And this is what happens with PP:
> 
>        •  The underlying filesystem must support ID‐mapped mounts.
>           Currently, the following filesystems support ID‐mapped
>           mounts:
> 
>               •  xfs(5) (since Linux 5.12)
>               •  ext4(5) (since Linux 5.12)
>               •  FAT (since Linux 5.12)
>               •  btrfs(5) (since Linux 5.15)
>               •  ntfs3 (since Linux 5.15)
>               •  f2fs (since Linux 5.18)
>               •  erofs (since Linux 5.19)
>               •  overlayfs  (ID‐mapped  lower and upper layers
>                  supported since Linux 5.19)
> 
>        •  The mount must not already be ID‐mapped.  This also implies
>           that the ID mapping of a mount cannot be altered.
> 
> So IP is necessary to let man(7) know that all what follows is still
> part of the bulleted item in the list.  Otherwise, I need to specify
> the indentation in RS, which I don't want.

Quite right.  I didn't have this initial context and agree with your
solution, given the constraints.

> > In the event you end up needing to retreat to raw roff for this, I
> > would replace the "empty" `IP` call with a simple `sp` request.
> 
> This is for lists, which is a very common thing in the pages.  I don't
> want them to be filled with 'sp' requests, and even less contributors
> to have to think about it :)

No worries.  I simply don't want people to feel like they have no
recourse.  Kernighan complained of Pascal, "there is no escape".  That's
not true of man(7).

> Yep, I'm waiting for them.  They'll be for after 1.23.0, I guess,
> right?

They would be.  I haven't yet formally proposed them.  What's in
groff(7) is a demonstration and proof of concept in a page that already
is not a model document per the suggestion in groff_man_style(7).

> It's definitely not in groff from git HEAD.

Not in the macro package, no.

> > composes in obvious ways with paragraphing macros before and after,
> > and with relative insets.  This is cleaner, in my opinion, than
> > mdoc(7)'s '-compact' and '-offset' options to its `Bl` macro.  This
> > has come up before[1].  Maybe I'll take another run at the icy wall
> > of conservatism that greets all such things after groff 1.23 is
> > finalized.
> 
> Yeah, makes sense.  A month or so before releasing is not the best
> moment to add new features.

No, but Deri's improvement of gropdf's font file resolution procedure
for embedded fonts has pulled on a loose thread and is having
interesting results.  Not, mind you, anything to do with man(7).

I had a footnote for that, but it ended up 140 lines long.  I'll start a
new thread for it.

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature