Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote: > Marc Espie: > > > I would also actually be fairly happy if we changed drastically the way > > sh(1) and ksh(1) look. To me, sh(1) should be the (more or less) standard > > shell documentation, AND ksh(1) should contain the differences/extensions. > > I think that is a terrible idea. Historically the tcsh(1) man page > was like this: only document the extensions to csh, point to csh(1) > for the rest. > > This only makes sense for people who already fully know the base > man page. If you don't, you now have to go back and forth between > two man pages to figure out things. > > Eventually, the tcsh man page was overhauled and now describes the > whole shell, which was a huge improvement in my book.
I agree with that. Solving the problem by changing "I have to look at 2 pages" into "I have to look at 2 pages, but interpret the results differently" is not great. Seperate coherent explanations are the best outcome, if it can be done.
