[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
- Re: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros (was: [PATCH 1/2] man*/: srcfix), James K. Lowden, 2023/11/05
- Re: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros (was: [PATCH 1/2] man*/: srcfix), Alexis, 2023/11/05
- .Li in mdoc(7), was: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros, Ingo Schwarze, 2023/11/07
- Re: .Li in mdoc(7), was: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros, James K. Lowden, 2023/11/10
- Re: .Li in mdoc(7), was: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros, G. Branden Robinson, 2023/11/10
- Re: .Li in mdoc(7), was: `\c`, mdoc(7), and man(7) extension macros,
James K. Lowden <=