From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50481 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752799Ab1HVIRA (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:17:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:16:54 +0200 From: Karel Zak To: kerolasa@gmail.com Cc: Benno Schulenberg , util-linux Subject: Re: man-pages and usage() howto Message-ID: <20110822081654.GH699@nb.net.home> References: <20110815141948.GH2038@nb.net.home> <1313485424.19019.140258130122469@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20110816104652.GA14535@nb.net.home> <1313831405.14363.140258131741205@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 09:08:08PM +0200, Sami Kerola wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:10, Benno Schulenberg wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:07 +0200, "Sami Kerola" wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:39, Karel Zak wrote: > >>> It would be also nice to sync man pages with usage() format. > > > > Do you mean that you want to use "--option " also in the > > man pages, Karel? Or do we stick there to italics for arguments? > > (Which translates to underlining on terminals.) I mean that we need to use the lowercase for the arguments in usage() as well as in man pages. > IMHO the following looks quite ok, and not too different to > usage(). > > .TP > \fB\-n\fR, \fB\-\-no\-argument\fR > This option does not use argument. > .TP > \fB\-o\fR, \fB\-\-optional\fR[=<\fIarg\fR>] > This option uses optional argument. > .TP > \fB\-r\fR, \fB\-\-required\fR <\fIarg\fR> > This option requires an argument. > > Comments? I have no strong opinion about it. Benno is probably right that italics for the arguments is enough. We already use option arguments without diamond brackets in our man pages, so let's continue with this convention to minimize number of changes in the man pages ;-) Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com