Hi Jan,
sorry that i failed to look at this earlier.
Even with your diff, the style is still not completely consistent.
I think that inside .Bd -literal, the best style is exactly the same
as in source code:
struct<space>name<space>{
<tab>type<tab+><space+>name;
<tab>type<tab+>*name;
};
where
* <tab+> can be more than one tab
if some of the types in the struct are long
* and <space+> can be two spaces if the struct contains a double pointer
* and <tab> can be reduced to four spaces if space is tight,
or a different number of spaces in very unusual cases
Even with your diff, some of the structs still indent the type
using eight spaces instead of a tab and some structs still use
multiple spaces instead of <tab+>.
That said, i think your diff is an improvement and you should commit it
(OK schwarze@), except that i disagree with your change to ktrace(2).
That one ought to use two tabs for <tab+> instead of one tab plus eight
spaces and it should use one tab after "struct timespec" instead of
one space.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 06:56:10PM +0200, Jan Klemkow wrote:
> This diff harmonises the indentation of struct members and comments in
> several manpages. Also fixes line wraps of comments on 80 column
> terminals. General uses tabs for general indentation and 4 spaces on
> tight spots. Also uses extra space to align pointers and non-pointers
> as we do this on certain places in our source.
Yes, i agree with all of that.
Yours,
Ingo
