Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 18 May 2015 17:16:33 -0400
From:      Patrick Kelsey <kelsey@ieee.org>
To:        Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
Cc:        Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Improvement to pthread_getspecific(3)
Message-ID:  <CAD44qMUpUi9ZhYNwapO5QmFg8PgPNybRhCZkLd_zx0CLhaNJEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1505181455100.34110@wonkity.com>
References:  <CAD44qMW3=axQypv3x=03kLUOraawsUW7Q1SToCwhnvhfcFs%2BQQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1505181403100.22210@multics.mit.edu> <2830799.6adxqfxTR7@ralph.baldwin.cx> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1505181437200.22210@multics.mit.edu> <CAD44qMVV4BD2g=ZvF%2BH_wj4Y_ggTtJHqO=36aLC_dtuy_QknUA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1505181455100.34110@wonkity.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Patrick Kelsey wrote:
>
>  On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, 18 May 2015, John Baldwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>  2. Markup - should I be using .Pq instead of explicit parentheses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not have a strong preference for Pq over explicit parentheses,
>>>>>
>>>> so I
>>>
>>>> would leave them in.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, I thought we preferred mdoc markup (Pq, Dq, etc.) when possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there are written style rules on this point, but there is a
>>> large body of existing text using both forms (for Pq in particular), and
>>> we're unlikely to get anywhere close to consolidation.
>>>
>>>
>> Based on cursory grep -r | wc on share/man, lines with explicit parens
>> outnumber lines with .Pq by about 4:1 with the delta being about 3.5k
>> lines.  That estimate is not perfect, but I did take some pains to exclude
>> counting among lines with explicit parens those with copyright symbols,
>> code examples, lines in comments (such as the license terms), etc.
>>
>
> That result gives the current state, which might not be the goal.  To put
> it another way, there are a lot of man pages which are not the best
> examples.
>

I agree.  These numbers were in the context of describing the 'large body
of existing text using both forms', and not meant to be a 'majority rules'
argument.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAD44qMUpUi9ZhYNwapO5QmFg8PgPNybRhCZkLd_zx0CLhaNJEA>