Hi!
On 1/10/22 19:49, наб wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 07:13:48PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
On 1/9/22 17:21, наб wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
man7/pkeys.7 | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/man7/pkeys.7 b/man7/pkeys.7
index 73ddcdc43..0fff6493f 100644
--- a/man7/pkeys.7
+++ b/man7/pkeys.7
@@ -42,9 +42,7 @@ to change the contents of a register in order to remove write
access, or all access to a tagged page.
.PP
Protection keys work in conjunction with the existing
-.BR PROT_READ /
-.BR PROT_WRITE /
-.BR PROT_EXEC
+.BR PROT_READ / PROT_WRITE / PROT_EXEC
Ahh, sorry, EPARSE!
The existing code was wrong. I read it as:
.BR PROT_READ " /"
It's not that your formatting seems worse to me in this case.
However, since we already have some kind of norm of writing each identifier
on its own line, I'll keep it like that for consistency.
That consistency also helps write scripts to find some patterns.
The problem with that is, of course, that it looks, uh, Not Good
(and that's already quite generous).
Hardly a good use of a typesetting language.
There's two ways to go about this, both keeping one symbol per line
(which, I do agree, is quite nice; the scriptability concern is somewhat
misplaced, IMO, given man(7)-imposed limitations, but.).
1. Keeping the current /-based flow:
Protection keys work in conjunction with the existing
.BR PROT_READ / \
PROT_WRITE / \
PROT_EXEC
permissions passed to system calls such as
(This sets as my original patch: "isting [P_R]/[P_W]/[P_E] permiss".)
2. Reorienting as a list:
Protection keys work in conjunction with the existing
.BR PROT_READ ,
.BR PROT_WRITE ", and"
.BR PROT_EXEC
permissions passed to system calls such as
(Which sets as "existing [P_R], [P_W], and [P_E] permissions".)
So, yes, either your 2nd option or fixing it to use " /" would be ok.
Text tends to be more readable, I think.
For your second option, I'd avoid using ", and", and put and on its own
line:
.BR AAA ,
.BR BBB ,
and
.BR CCC
rationale:
$ grep -rn '", and"' man? | wc -l
2
$ grep -rn "^and$" man? | wc -l
2447
Thanks!
Alex
IMO, 2 reads better. Thoughts? >
наб
--
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
