Hi Ingo, On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 07:52:13PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > I consider this a bikeshed discussion. Sure. But someone has to design the bike parkings. I find a lot awful bike parkings that harm bike's wheels, and have to park it in a sign or tree nearby. > > Given that Branden apparently wants to > * promote .P and deprecate .PP > * i don't want mandoc_man(7) to gratuitiously spread any more bad > man(7) style advice than is unavoidable by the fundamental decision > of declaring the whole man(7) language as obsolete, > i briefly considered changing mandoc_man(7). > > Currently it says: > > PP Begin an undecorated paragraph. The scope of a paragraph is closed > by a subsequent paragraph, sub-section, section, or end of file. > The saved paragraph left-margin width is reset to the default. > > LP A synonym for PP. > > P This synonym for PP is an AT&T System III UNIX extension later > adopted by 4.3BSD. > > and it declares LP and P deprecated by including only PP in the > MACRO OVERVIEW. > > All the arguments feel weak in either direction: > > * In theory, .PP is more portable than .P, but that is extremely > unlikely to ever matter in practice. > * As seen above, the similarities and subtle differences > when comparing to ms(7) can be employed as arguments in either > direction. > * The arguably more important similarity that HTML defines a
> but not a can also be turned around to be
> levied as an argument for .PP: .P and are *very different*
> in so far as is a block element, whereas .P is an in-line
> macro that cannot participate in block nesting. In particular,
> it can neither nest inside a list item, nor can anything be
> contained inside a .P syntax tree node. In contrast to ,
> .P does not represent a *paragraph*, but only a paragraph *break*.
> * .PP is more similar to mdoc(7) .Pp. Again, a weak argument because
> macro naming is totally different in both languages even in most
> of the few cases where functionality matches, with the exception
> of only .SH and .SS.
>
> Consequently, i tend to leave mandoc_man(7) just as it is and not
> repaint the bikeshed. That way, the original .PP macro - with which
> nothing is really wrong, except for the fundamental design mistake
> of not being a block macro, a mistake it shares with mdoc(7) .Pp -
> gets the full description, while the slighly younger .P gets the
> compat info, even though that now is only of historical but not
> of practical interest. Maybe still nice to keep both apart - gee,
> yet another weak argument.
>
> If, for some reason, you feel strongly about it and think it is
> important which one to promote, it might be possible to convince me to
> deprecate .PP and list .P as the non-deprecated form even though it
> is theoretically less portable. I must admit i don't particularly
> like the idea, though. It feels like taking a gratuitious risk,
> which does not feel ideal even if both the magnitude of the risk
> and the benefit reaped are almost exactly zero.
I don't think there's any urgent need to change mandoc_man(7), since
good quality man(7) pages should not even read that page. I see it as
a quick guide if you're in a mandoc(1) system and need to fix a man(7)
bug or something. If you're going to write new man(7) pages, you
probably want to read groff_man(7).
But I think having 3 ways of spelling PP is bad, and I think deprecating
at least LP, and possibly one of P or PP would be a good move.
For making sure pages are fixed, we could an a warning that gets
triggered always, so that projects have time to catch the change.
As for chosing P or PP: I don't mind very much which, but P seems
slightly better. Since both are relatively widespread, and I can help
turn the balance in favour of any of them, I'll side with groff(1)
using and recommending P. But yeah, it's a very arbitrary decission
between P and PP.
Cheers,
Alex
>
> Yours,
> Ingo
--