Re: [OT] enum man page review
David,
On 10/20/10 23:54, David Prévot wrote:
> Here is the beginning of a “form-only” proposition, in order to follow
> usual conventions as described in man(1), and usually adopted.
>
> Some comment about the proposed changes.
Very welcome, thanks.
> Do you want me to continue the
> changes on the rest of the manual page?
No thanks, done that myself already.
> 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:
Original
enum LEFT ".." COUNT"x" STEP ".."
enum LEFT .. COUNT"x" .. RIGHT
Without dots
enum LEFT COUNT"x" STEP
enum LEFT COUNT"x" RIGHT
(STEP and RIGHT are both arbitrary floating point numbers.)
>, and should be typed exactly as shown (thus bold)
Good idea, changed.
> -Further details on [...] are covered in \fIUSAGE IN DETAIL\fR\&.
> +Further details on [...] are covered in \fBUSAGE IN DETAIL\fR\&.
>
> Title of section are usually typed as they are showed: in bold.
Good idea, changed.
> -\fB\-i, \-\-seed\fR=\fINUMBER\fR
> +\fB\-i\fR, \fB\-\-seed=\fINUMBER\fR
>
> The comma should not be typed, so not in bold
Agreed, changed.
>, 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.
Thanks again,
Sebastian
Reply to: