Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 18:14:56 +0100 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Gerzo <danger@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc@freebsd.org, Christian Brueffer <brueffer@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r186737 - head/sbin/geom/class/virstor Message-ID: <20090104171455.GC1208@arthur.nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <287359450.20090104174842@rulez.sk> References: <200901041541.n04Ff1Oh060753@svn.freebsd.org> <20090104155832.GA1257@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> <287359450.20090104174842@rulez.sk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2009.01.04 17:48:42 +0100, Daniel Gerzo wrote: > Hello Christian, > > Sunday, January 4, 2009, 4:58:32 PM, you wrote: > > > While using .Ex is good, collapsing EXIT STATUS into DIAGNOSTICS is not. > > EXIT STATUS is a standard section in our manpages and it's orthogonal to > > DIAGNOSTICS. > > I am fine to revert this part, however I have trimmed this section > just because I didn't see it listed in the PAGE STRUCTURE DOMAIN > section of the mdoc(7) manual page. > > Interestingly, it lists the DIAGNOSTICS section and explicitly > says that .Ex macro should be used there. > > If is it still preferred to revert this change, I would like to see > this section added to the mdoc(7). Thoughts? I really like having EXIT STATUS as a seperate section so I can quickly find out what a program can return with. The example(1) (/usr/share/examples/mdoc/example.1) does have EXIT STATUS. I think mentioning it in mdoc(7) seems like a good idea, but you should probably get ru@'s input on that. PS. ping(1) uses RETURN VALUES section instead which should probably be changed. -- Simon L. Nielsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090104171455.GC1208>