Re: style: .MR

[Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)]

On 2/7/22 22:28, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> It's an open question, and there is an unresolved difference of opinion
> between me and Ingo Schwarze (mandoc maintainer) about a somewhat
> broader issue.
> 
> Here's the background from last August[1].  Reading all 3 messages in
> the thread is recommended.

Yes, I remember having read that discussion. :p

> Right now the second argument to `MR` is mandatory (did I forget to put
> in a style warning?--no, I didn't).

Ah, I didn't yet run CHECKSTYLE, since that page I'm writing is far from
finished.  But good to know.


>> And then there's the option of using .B, or .I, but as we know,
>> there's no consensus on which of them should be used.
> 
> Right.  I don't see any solutions for this apart from making `MR` more
> permissive, supporting "semantic tag classes" (my pie-in-the-sky idea
> above), or bloating the macro name space for a something of limited and
> specialized function, and the last is my least favorite by a long shot.
> 
> If someone else has a better imagination, please speak up.
> 

I think the solution in this case is to chose one of .I and .B,
depending on your taste.

Thanks,

Alex

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/