On Thursday 20 October 2011 14:28:39 Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 20 October 2011 13:26, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday 20 October 2011 14:17:39 Reuben Thomas wrote: > >> On 20 October 2011 13:08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thursday 20 October 2011 03:04:12 Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> >> +.RB \*(lq /lib/ld-linux.so.* > >> >> +.RI [ options ] > >> >> +.I program > >> >> +.RI [ arguments ]\*(rq. > >> > > >> > can we avoid lq/rq ? it's pretty uncommon and imo, just useless > >> > noise. > >> > >> Au contraire, proper quotation marks make man pages more readable; to > >> be encouraged. > > > > sorry, my point was lq/rq vs "", not lq/rq vs nothing ... > > In that case I retract my retraction: I'd much rather have curly > quotes. They're more readable and they make it easier to tell when > quotes are part of input/output (in which case they're straight). it's uncommon in the man-pages tree. if you want to start a discussion about the style in the tree, then feel free, but please don't introduce deviation. do it right from the start. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
