[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [groff] man7/groff.man. Was Make editorial changes.
From: |
G. Branden Robinson |
Subject: |
Re: [groff] man7/groff.man. Was Make editorial changes. |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:46:43 +1000 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20180716 |
At 2019-07-01T15:02:35-0400, Doug McIlroy wrote:
> I agree with Ingo about proposed descriptions of \& and sentence
> spaces. Elaboration is not explanation.
The context of the elaboration under discussion is portability and style
advice in the groff_man(7) page. On my to-do list, and as copiously
commented within that very file, is the production of a
groff_man_style(7) or groff_man_tutorial(7) page to which much of this
prescriptive information can be moved.
> \& is simply a zero-length character. Its primary use is to disguise
> sequences that groff would otherwise unwantedly interpret. For
> example, "\&." at the beginning of an input line will be taken as
> text, not a groff request. Given the general case, further examples
> are unnecessary.
Yes--in the same sense that Strunk & White's _Elements of Style_ is
unnecessary. Every principle within it can be deduced from experience
with a modest corpus of English sample literature.
> "Sentence space" is a fraught convention, mentioned in groff(7) but
> not defined. It is not revealed that "sentence space" is extra
> [space], not the whole space between sentences.
I did not know this! Thank you.
> Nor is the default sentence space stated. A first cut at a general
> definition might be:
>
> BUGS
> Extra "sentence space", by default one space character, is
> inserted after sentences, which are identified by artificial
> intelligence. False identifications may be mitigated by
> judicious use of \&.
I don't think this is even a bug; it's simply long-standing
typopgraphical practice that is considered good for readability,
especially when using monospaced fonts.
> A personal false-identification hazard: in the court of groff I will
> be declared innocent if I call myself M. Douglas McIlroy, but will be
> sentenced if I call myself Mr. Douglas McIlroy.
I don't see the distinction you do?
$ cat sentence-space.roff && echo --- && nroff sentence-space.roff
.na
.pl 3v
.ss 12u 60u
M. Douglas McIlroy, meet G. Branden Robinson.
Mr. Branden Robinson, meet Mr. Douglas McIlroy.
May the \f[I]groff\f[] be with you.
---
M. Douglas McIlroy, meet G. Branden Robinson. Mr. Branden
Robinson, meet Mr. Douglas McIlroy. May the groff be with
you.
> Again speaking personally, this discussion has made me aware of the
> second argument of .ss. I expect from now on to cut the Gordian
> knot by using .ss 12 0, at least in nroff.
I'll just be reaching for some smelling salts now. ;-)
This doesn't seem crazy in the Times family; but that's troff territory,
so I guess our preferences are at opposite poles...
> Incidentally, groff(7) defines \n[.ss] enigmatically thus: "The value
> of the parameters [sic] set by the first argument of the ss request",
> and defines \n[.sss] similarly. A more informative definition would be,
> "The value N set by .ss N M". This rules out other plausible values,
> e.g. \w' '*N/12.
Yes, this could certainly use some improvement. Thanks for pointing
this out.
Regards,
Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature