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

Re: [OT] enum man page review

Hash: SHA1


Le 20/10/2010 19:48, Sebastian Pipping a écrit :
> On 10/20/10 23:54, David Prévot wrote:

>> Do you want me to continue the
>> changes on the rest of the manual page?
> No thanks, done that myself already.

Great, thank you.

>> Here are some explanations:
>> -\fBenum\fR [ \fIOPTIONS\fR ] \fILEFT\fR "\&.\&." 	[...]
>> +\fBenum\fR [ \fIOPTIONS\fR ] \fILEFT\fR [\fB\&.\&.\fR]	[...]
>> If I'm not mistaken *..* is optional (thus within [ ])
> In a few cases it is, but we mainly intruduced these cases for
> compatibility to GNU seq.  Furthermore, if we allowed their omission in
> general, these two cases (to give an example) would become
> indistinguishable:

Sure, I understand know, so just drop the [] and the quotes (which are
misleading), patch attached. There is no need to mark them optional
since GNU shorcuts are showed bellow. I can see in *VALID COMBINATIONS*
section that some argument may be dropped in some cases, but since it's
explained in this section, no need to make the *SYNOPSIS* section bigger
(or drop the *VALID COMBINATIONS* in favor of the *SYNOPSIS* one, but I
doubt that would be an improvement).

>> -\fB\-i, \-\-seed\fR=\fINUMBER\fR
>> +\fB\-i\fR, \fB\-\-seed=\fINUMBER\fR

>> , but the equal sign
>> should, so in bold.
> I have not applied this proposal yet, as the equal sign gets too much
> attention that way, in my opinion.  I have considered removing equal
> signs from the man page altogether, but reverted that commit.  Not 100%
> sure yet.

I don't understand, should the equal sign be typed or not? (I can't find
any use of long option with argument in the manual page). If the equal
must be typed (e.g. enum --format='[%3i] "%c"' 0 127), it should be
bold, but if not (e.g. enum --format '[%3i] "%c"' 0 127), it should be
removed from the manual page.



Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: