Re: Using tbl(1) for structure definitions

[Alejandro Colomar]

Hi Branden,

On 7/29/22 23:08, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Alex!
>
> At 2022-07-29T17:26:10+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > On 7/29/22 15:52, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I don't think you're abusing it but you are employing some heavy
> > > machinery that brings some limitations with it.  The worst from my
> > > perspective is that using tbl(1) in man pages limits your
> > > flexibility in terms of line length.  Terminal windows can be all
> > > kinds of crazy sizes.
> >
> > Oh, didn't the Mesopotamians already know about the standard tablet
> > size of 80x24?  :D
> >
> > "Thou shalt set your tablet size to 80x24 or larger, but never
> > smaller; or thou shalt not report a bug if the formatting becomes
> > unreadable.  Thou shalt not assume your neighbor has a tablet wider
> > than 80 characters, so thou shalt not write past it."
> >
> > I think that's what the famous tablets said.
>
> Mmm, so it would be nice to overcome that line intersection problem in
> grotty(1).  Maybe for groff 1.24...
>
> > Sure; compare:
> >
> >
> >             u64  mode;     /* Mode          for
> >                               O_{CREAT,TMPFILE}
> >                               */
> >
> >             u64  mode;     /* Mode          for
> >                            O_{CREAT,TMPFILE}
> >                            */
>
> Ah, you want the comments to wrap extra-attractively.  Let me counter by
> suggesting that most of the time, the comments should fit on the same
> ouput line anyway.

Hmm, considering that the amount of multiline comments with 80-char 
terminals is still non-negligible (not in this page, but in all type 
pages), I think I prefer to consistently support them, even when I don't 
need.  That will have 2 side effects: contributors will experience a 
more consistent syntax; and I will support smaller terminals with 
extra-attractive comments.

I'll send a v5 with another page, to show that tabs are not good enough.
And I'll try to not forget CCing groff@.

> > > I'm really looking forward to killing off another application of
> > > `PD`.
> >
> > Ok.  T think I'll remove .PD, and leave the extra blank line until .TS
> > is fixed.  A blank line will not hurt too much.
>
> The fix should be in my next push; I merely got caught in a yak shave
> called groff_mm(7).

Nice.  Still, I woudn't make use of it so fast, if the side effect in 
old groff(1) versions was something more than a blank line.  Poor 
contributors are unlikely to have latest groff for git HEAD :)

Regards,

Alex

--
Alejandro Colomar
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature