Hi Branden, On 2026-04-22T11:36:03-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > [stripping distribution down to just the linux-man list and Alex] > > At 2026-04-23T00:13:57+0800, Cheng-Yang Chou wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 06:02:49PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > @@ -218,8 +223,10 @@ This field specifies the nice value to be set when specifying > > > > .I sched_policy > > > > as > > > > .B SCHED_OTHER > > > > +, > > > > > > What's the reason for this weird formatting of the source code? At > > > this point I wonder if this was generated by AI. > > > > Yes, I used AI for the formatting, which I should disclose it, hence > > the weird layout. > > I don't know, man, I stuck a comma on a line by itself in a man page > just the other day. ;-) I've seen several other clues in the patch. This was the once that confirmed it to me. At first I thought that maybe the contributor could not know that BR exists, and thus try that naively (I've seen that done in other patches). However, 2 lines below there the patch introduced a line using BR perfectly. That very much read like random LLM stuff. There was also the arbitrary combined use of .P and .PP. I suspect no human would use both in a document, unless the surrounding style already uses both (which could confuse). Since we only have .P, the .PP came out of nowhere. And then there's the extensive use of \f (without brackets) and \(bu, of which we have no cases anymore. All of this was very suspicious, so I had to ask. Have a lovely day! Alex > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff-commit/2026-04/msg00282.html > > +We prefix macro names with > +_ifstyle()dnl > +a dot > +.RB ( . ), > +_endif()dnl > +the default > +.I roff > +control character\c > +_ifstyle()dnl > +, > +_endif()dnl > +_ifnotstyle()dnl > +\& > +_endif()dnl > +in summaries and synopses. > > (Lest anyone hyperventilate, that's not a man(7) document per se, but an > m4(1) document that _generates_ a man(7) document.) > > Regards, > Branden --