Re: italicizing pointer stars (was: [PATCH] getline.3: wfix.)

["G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1690 bytes --]

Hi Alex,

At 2022-08-05T21:40:06+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 8/5/22 21:20, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'm wondering if we should really be setting the dereferencing
> > operator in italics here.
> > 
> > In declarations, the star is part of the _type_, not the identifier.
> > Similarly, in expressions, the star is an operator, like "+", not
> > part of the identifier.
> 
> Let me escape out of this a bit sideways :P
> 
> *foo, as a whole, is an expression, consisting of an operator and an
> identifier.  So I won't apply identifier rules for highlighting, but
> expression rules.  The rules for marking expressions up are:
> 
> man-pages(7):
>    Formatting conventions (general)
>        [...]
> 
>        Expressions,  if not written on a separate indented line,
>        should be specified in italics.  Again, the use  of  non‐
>        breaking  spaces  may be appropriate if the expression is
>        inlined with normal text.

Ahhh.  I had just reviewed that page while pondering a bunch of
miscellaneous suggestions I might craft into a patch series, but the
foregoing utterly failed to sink in.

> And the deep rationale why I would like to avoid having the star in a
> different font is that it could be confused with the glob-like
> expressions that we use for example to refer to SYS_* macros.

That makes sense.  I think instead of adopting glob syntax, I would use
quotation, but quotation in man(7) is so awkward that many people act
like it's unavailable.  This is just one of many reasons I think man(7)
should have a `Q` macro to facilitate it.

> Did I dodge the bullet?

I think so.  :)

Regards,
Branden

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]