[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Back to the future

From: Anthony J. Bentley
Subject: Re: [Groff] Back to the future
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:36:59 -0700

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Mike Bianchi <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't see why we are stuck.  If there were macros that supported a semantic
> representation of the common man page structures they could be added to -man.
> I imagine:
>         .SYNOPSIS
>         .Command        man
>         .FlagArgOpt     C file
>         .FlagArgOpt     d
>         .FlagArgOpt     D
>         .LongArgOptOpt  warnings  warnings
>                 . . .
>         .Option         section
>         .Args           page
>         .Command     man
>         .FlagArg     -k
>         .Option      "apropos options"
>         .Args        regexp
>                 :
>         .DESCRIPTION
>         .Command man
>         is the system's manual pager.
>         Each
>         .Arg page
>         argument given to
>         .Command man
>         is normally

Maybe, but isn't this just reinventing -mdoc?

Your example above would be written like this:

.Nm man
.Op Fl C Ar file
.Op Fl d
.Op Fl D
.Op Fl Fl warnings Ns Op =warnings
.Op section
.Ar page ...
.Nm man
.Fl k
.Op apropos options
.Ar regexp ...
is the system's manual pager.
.Ar page
argument given to
is normally

Funny, that looks almost exactly like what you posted. Since -mdoc
already exists, is shipped in man(1) with a great many systems
(certainly all the ones I've ever used), and already has thousands of
manpages written in it, why extend -man in a backwards incompatible
manner? Any system which doesn't support -mdoc would certainly not
support these new -man macros.

Anthony J. Bentley

reply via email to

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