groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: .Li in mdoc(7), was: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros


From: James K. Lowden
Subject: Re: .Li in mdoc(7), was: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2023 19:50:51 -0500

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 18:08:51 -0600
"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:

> > it's not a "symbol", in that it doesn't stand for anything but
> > itself.
> 
> (Careful now, or the shambling zombie of Jacques Derrida is going to
> kick down the door and subject us all to a fate worse than being
> subjected to necrocannibalism: a lecture in semiotics.)

Not that it matters, but I might not understand my assertion well
enough to understand your joke.  :-)
 
> > And I don't want it to appear in boldface, because it needs no
> > emphasis.)
> 
> That's in contrast to the conventions of synopsis as elsewhere
> documented, though.
...
> while the macro languages for
> constructing man pages may differ, their output generally should not

Buit of course they do, as you know.  And it's a matter of opinion
whether or not the differences matter to the reader's understanding.  

For example, compare the synopses (?) of strcpy(3) with vis(3).  One is
man, the other mdoc.  I think the argument over what should be bold and
what should be italics predates Unix System III.  

--jkl



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]