Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 09:48:26 +0300 From: Yuri Pankov <yuripv@yuripv.dev> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r361940 - head/usr.bin/mkimg Message-ID: <bd5e499e-36a7-51cc-4130-c29a344b580d@yuripv.dev> In-Reply-To: <20200608211940.qrR5l%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <202006082111.058LBYfj075205@repo.freebsd.org> <20200608211940.qrR5l%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: > Hi. > > Mateusz Piotrowski wrote in > <202006082111.058LBYfj075205@repo.freebsd.org>: > |Author: 0mp (doc,ports committer) > |Date: Mon Jun 8 21:11:34 2020 > |New Revision: 361940 > |URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361940 > | > |Log: > | Use Fl instead of Ar for long flags > ... > |-.Ar --formats | --schemes | --version > |+.Fl -formats | Fl -schemes | Fl -version > > Ingo Schwarze of mandoc has in the meanwhile committed support for > ".Fl Fl", which is the term that seems to be most widely used for > long options, for example > > .Fl Fl formats > > It also works just fine for groff, the real roff macros that is. This requires quoting the actual commit message: While we do not recommend the idiom ".Fl Fl long" for long options because it is an abuse of semantic macros for device-specific presentational effects, this idiom is so widespread that it makes sense to convert it to the recommended ".Fl \-long" during the validation phase. For example, this improves HTML formatting in pages where authors have used the dubious .Fl Fl. So, FWIW, while the support for ".Fl Fl" was added, using it is not recommended.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bd5e499e-36a7-51cc-4130-c29a344b580d>