Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: RFC: Better formatting for long descriptions
- From: Guillem Jover <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:53:46 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20090416035346.GA13462@gluon.hadrons.org>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903231313470.12350@wr-linux02>
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903200844150.9783@wr-linux02> <20090321221354.GB5004@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org> <20090323000750.GK20778@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <20090323062445.GW5004@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org> <20090323100417.GB20778@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903231313470.12350@wr-linux02>
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 13:26:36 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> > So it would be great if some numbers could be brought up first (maybe
> > Andreas has a rough overview now, because he looked at the different
> > kinds of itemizations).
> Well, I had not but you can get it somehow by
> for tag in "\*" "-" "+" "o" ; do
> echo "Tag $tag was used `grep "^ $tag " /var/lib/dpkg/available | wc -l` times"
> Tag \* was used 5647 times
> Tag - was used 2710 times
> Tag + was used 85 times
> Tag o was used 282 times
> which only counts those who have proper spacing - but for a rough estimation
> '*' wins definitely.
Even if we'd have to fix all the entries with wrong spacing anyway to
reach correctness, I was curious to see numbers for all spacing variants
for a wider representation of the characters used:
,-- count-bullet-chars.sh --
total=`grep "^ *[-+\*o] " $lists | wc -l`
for tag in "\*" "-" "+" "o"; do
items=`grep "^ *$tag " $lists | wc -l`
percent=`echo "scale=4; $items / $total * 100" | bc`
echo "Tag $tag was used $items times ($percent%)"
Tag \* was used 9277 times (68.0900%)
Tag - was used 3837 times (28.1600%)
Tag + was used 120 times (.8800%)
Tag o was used 390 times (2.8600%)
Regardless of the numbers though (which have moved lately slightly in
favour of '-' due to the recommendations from the Smith reviewing
project), I've always found the asterisk the obvious character to use
for bulleted lists, as it's the one ressembling the most a bullet, and
it's the one we use in changelog entries and similar.