Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use subsections instead of sections

From: "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>
To: "Thaddeus H. Black" <thb@debian.org>
Cc: "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	linux-man@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Use subsections instead of sections
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 04:49:49 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210912184948.2v5v2vumqy4hxap3@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YT4bOyqm87Do3SMG@b-tk.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

At 2021-09-12T15:22:35+0000, Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 04:56:21PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar
> (man-pages) wrote:
> > I'm a bit worried that this might be overcomplicating it, and maybe
> > a hypothetical .SSS macro would be useful here (or another
> > solution).  Do you have any thoughts about it?
> > 
> > That hypothetical macro would behave like .TP + .B + .RS (as shown
> > above; and that .RS would only end at a following .SSS/.SS/.SH)
> 
> It is not important to me that my .SSS macro be used, but for
> reference here it is:
> 
> .de1 SSS
> .  if !r SSS_SN_ORIG .nr SSS_SN_ORIG \\n[SN]
> .  nr SN (2 * \\n[SSS_SN_ORIG])
> .  SS \&\\$*
> .  nr SN (\\n[SSS_SN_ORIG])
> ..

Oh, I definitely like this better than my own straw-man proposal.  It's
much cleaner.

I still question the need for this depth of organization in a man page,
but I could see the aboev becoming a nestable `SN` sub*-sectioning macro
much more straightforwardly than a TP/B/RS-based solution.

Of course, this one only indents the section heading itself, not the
paragraphs the follow, so some RS/RE tomfoolery would likely still be
required.

Good to see you, Thaddeus--I definitely remember you from Debian mailing
list days.  :)

Regards,
Branden

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