Hi Michael On 9/13/20 10:20 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 9/13/20 2:53 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> On 9/13/20 2:01 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 at 10:59, Alejandro Colomar >> <colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > Here I would *not* show these kinds of typedefs. The point is > that these types should be treated as being somewhat unknown > (e.g., for casts in printf()). Here, I think instead maybe we > just have a statement that POSIX makes no specific requirements > for the representation of this type. Agreed. > > [...] > >>>> Sure. And for the structs, I'd allow: >>>> >>>> 'man struct timespec' (For simplicity) >>>> 'man struct-timespec' (Similar to the git man pages) >>>> 'man timespec' (For compatibility with libbsd) >>> >> [...] > > Offhand, I can't think of any such conflicts. Many of the data > types have names suffixed with "_t", and there should be no > conflicts there. Yes. > > For other types, such as timeval, timespec, etc, I don't expect > there are many conflicts. One case that I can think of where > there's a function and a struct with the same name is 'sigaction'. > But there's not really a problem there, since, on the one hand, > I don't expect that that is one of the types that should be > documented in system_data_types(7), Why not? > and on the other hand, > currently "man sigaction" takes you to the page that documents > both the function and the structure. Fair enough. >> [...] > > Throw in 'struct timeval' too? Fine. > >> Do you think there's any page that has a similar format to what we want >> to base on it? > > I think nothing special is required. See man-pages(7) for general > info on the layout of pages. I expect the types can be placed > as an alphabetically ordered hanging list under DESCRIPTION. Ok. New question: I've already started and I'm writing the short description on 'time_t'. POSIX has copyright and all rights reserved, but do you think it would be fair use to copy descriptions such as "Used for time in seconds."? Or do I have to come up with a new short description? Thanks, Alex
