Re: [PATCH 1/3] timespec.3type: tv_nsec is impl-def-type, glibc llong not a bug

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1412 bytes --]

Hi Alex,

At 2023-01-30T14:15:50+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 1/30/23 08:08, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>, 2023-01-29 16:48:
> > > > +.BR "    /*\(da*/   tv_nsec;" "  /* Nanoseconds [" 0 ", " 999999999 "] */"
> > > 
> > > I'm tempted to merge this patch.  It's sooo qute /*↓*/
> > 
> > I want man pages legible, not cute.
> 
> I know, I know.
> 
> > Please make it
> > 
> >    /* see below */ tv_nsec
> > 
> > or maybe
> > 
> >    long /* but see below */ tv_nsec
> > 
> > (given that C23 is not a thing yet).
> 
> The reason why I seriously considered /*↓*/ is that it is a bit
> shocking to the reader, which will prompt it to read the rest of the
> page to see what the hell that is.

Even more shocking will be 'v', which is what it will degrade to on
ASCII, ISO 8859, and code page 1047 terminals.  On top of being
startling, it will look simply like an error.

> I'm worried that if we make it `long` plus a comment to see below,
> many will ignore it.

That's on them.  "/* see below */" means what it says.  A person cannot
reasonably claim they weren't warned.

> /* see below */ with no mentions to `long` might be a reasonable
> alternative. Maybe I'd use /* ... */
> 
> What do y'all think about it?

I think

long /* see below */ tv_nsec;

meets the requirements at issue.

Regards,
Branden

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