From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 12:57:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C211B37B401 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CA943F85 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19egkT-0005nZ-00 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:55:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19egjH-0005hp-00 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:53:51 +0200 From: Samuel Tardieu Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:47:54 +0200 Organization: Avian Carrier & Friends Lines: 15 Message-ID: <87el0j1x1x.fsf@inf.enst.fr> References: <3F19C78A.7030008@mac.com> <20030719233535.GF77396@sunbay.com> <3F19D8D3.1040401@mac.com> <87vftyoy91.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <20030721192952.GE23226@zot.electricrain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org Mail-Copies-To: sam@rfc1149.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) XEmacs/21.5 (cauliflower, i386--freebsd) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YyT8H7zhAlF+v1CM/MNybrKKV68= X-Leafnode-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1 Sender: news Subject: Re: A patch to man to handle "man.1"... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:57:44 -0000 >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Doherty writes: Chris> does that cover all cases? seems like this is a useful syntax Chris> to add on--anything to make man(7) more usable is a good thing Chris> IMO. :-) It may cover all the cases, but I'm still undecided whether it makes things simpler or not :-) After all, it's the very same number of characters to type and complexity to add (your first implementation looked ok but had an hidden flaw, wouldn't your second have one as well?). Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam