Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 20:41:29 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, delphij@freebsd.org, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> Subject: Re: docs/184550: bc -q option not documented in man page Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK1=oifQd8Fu7xAVNtw3OTHXDPqUJ8m28GLT3UGsTGMsFA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131207021835.GK20078@glenbarber.us> References: <201312070107.rB717SAW015758@freefall.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgk50a0gL7_O3t=iFM-XGjnwam07ZNkOOgsWV=Tu7OKDXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131207021835.GK20078@glenbarber.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 09:12:30PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: > > all options should be documented. An undocumented option is a bug. > > If we don't want people using it we should document as such. > > > > It is documented. > > case 'q': > /* compatibility option */ > break; > Source code comments IMO don't qualify for docs. It should be documented in the man page. There are plenty of other examples cite option X is there for compatibility/historical purposes. Most users aren't going to review the source code for docs. -- Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK1=oifQd8Fu7xAVNtw3OTHXDPqUJ8m28GLT3UGsTGMsFA>