[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [groff] [PATCH] man page patches for 1.22.4.rc5/final

From: Dave Kemper
Subject: Re: [groff] [PATCH] man page patches for 1.22.4.rc5/final
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:26:24 -0600

As long as we're still considering documentation fixes, here's another
set.  These are all low urgency but also low risk, so depending on the
prevailing winds, they could go into this release or wait till the
next one.

The attached patch fixes some simple typos in documentation files and
comment lines that should be completely uncontroversial.  Three other
possible changes might warrant further discussion (which might also
imply they're not good candidates for last-minute changes, but I offer
them for second opinions).

1. src/devices/grotty/

Part of the documentation for -i says "most terminals (including
xterm) don't support this."

No doubt this was true when it was added (Feb 2002, commit
e30e96cf2e61dc8dced25f426b7615573916eee4), but today it's not true of
at least xterm or MacOS's Terminal.  Is it true of enough modern
terminals to reduce it down to "many terminals" or "some terminals"?
Or should it just be removed altogether?

2. doc/groff.texi

Part of the documentation for -a says "this option is rather useless
today since graphic output devices are available virtually
everywhere."  This seems a needless bit of editorializing -- and of
questionable accuracy, given that a recent thread on this list pointed
out the virtues of this option.  For one, this sentence implies that
-a output has no use besides as a poor substitute for graphical
output.  And the ubiquity of graphic-output devices doesn't mean
you're working in a session that has easy access to one (e.g., over

The simplest fix is to axe this sentence.  A better fix might be to
give the user ideas on how the option enables tasks (e.g., allowing
easy diffs of typeset output; grepping for widows; automated
regression testing; probably more) that are difficult or impossible
with PostScript and PDF output.

3. doc/groff.texi

Underlining by overstrike is described as "printing an underline
character, then moving the caret back one character position, and
printing the actual character at the same position as the underline

I'm betting "moving the caret back" was intended to say "moving the
cursor back."  If so, probably just shortening it to "moving back" is
just as clear (and arguably more accurate, as there's no cursor

Attachment: typos.patch
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

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