Hi Ralph, At 2022-01-04T09:17:42+0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Branden, > > > > > .MR ls 1 . > > > > > > That’s nice and all, but still inconsistent with p9p -man. There, > > > you’d do > > > > > > .MR ls (1) . > > > > Yes; the typing of parentheses seems to serve no purpose in a > > semantic macro, as noted above. > > Given groff didn't get there first, why should it be able to deviate > and cause confusion for ever more for no good reason?
There are multiple incorrect assumptions in this (formally) complex
question.
1. Confusion is unlikely to last "for ever more". If uptake of 'MR'
remains confined to plan9port and groff man pages, there will be
essentially none. There are other ways confusion can abate; one
project or the other could become defunct, or mdoc or Markdown could
finally utterly displace the man(7) format. Your rhetoric is
inflated.
2. You say "for no good reason", but you have failed to quote in your
email or dispute the precise reasons that were offered[1]. If one is
able to engage those reasons on their merits, then one should do so;
otherwise, one offers little to engage with in an objective
discussion.
3. If "getting there first" were the sole determiner of interface
design, the macro in question should be called 'IM', not 'MR',
because that's what Russ named it at first. He kindly considered my
suggestion for revision even though the feature was already "done".
The last point is probably the most important; we should try, where
possible, to discourse in software development in a collegial way.
Charges of "deviation" are reminiscent of the Sino-Soviet split or of
the sectarian schisms and religious wars of Europe. These relational
archtypes are the opposite of collegiality--are they the best model for
cross-project discussions in the *roff community?
Can you do better, please?
Regards,
Branden
[1] These are (a) symmetry with 'TH' and (b) the semantic, rather than
typographical, significance of the first two arguments to 'MR'.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
