On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 05:54:13PM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-12 14:32]: > > Indeed. Right now, lexgrog is not even close to being able to parse > > *roff at this level. Even if I were to implement that, other > > implementations of whatis can't handle this either. > > Well, if you do the correct parse at the mandb, then we should not bother > about the different implementations of whatis, should we?
Debian's whatis and mandb are both part of man-db. Not everyone uses man-db *at all*. There are two major implementations of the whole man toolchain in common use on GNU/Linux; the fork happened in the early 1990s, and they've diverged far enough that we're pretty much stuck with it. > > For portability, you should avoid constructs like that in the NAME > > section. > > In this case, the Pod::Man module should be changed to avoid the > inclusion of "special" constructs in the NAME section. I agree. > I personally find this choice sub-optimal, because those markups are > useful in the man pages. Pod::Man merely has to expand out the contents of the macros (.ds) within NAME. It doesn't need to deprive you of any visual markup. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
