Andreas Heiduk <asheiduk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> However, I think this "no value (but still with '=')" is making it >> more confusing than necessary for two reasons. > [...] > >> I notice that in this Values section (where the boolean:: is the >> first entry) there is no mention on how to spell a string value. > > I assumed this is due to the pretext of the definition list: > > Values of many variables are treated as a simple string, but there > are variables that take values of specific types and there are rules > as to how to spell them. I assumed so too. But if you knew that "[section] var =" is a valid way to spell an empty string, I'd thought that you wouldn't have written "no value but still with '=')" there. The description for "true" (i.e. "[section] var" and nothing else) is also spelled out perfectly well in the Syntax section, but it is duplicated in Values section. I think that it is a good thing to have the complete picture in a single Values section, without assuming readers to know what is in the other Syntax section. So if it bothers you to have a non-specific "string" description in the Values section, I think it would be more helpful to update the pretext so that including the description of a simple string there does not look unnatural, IMHO.
