Hi Alex, At 2022-09-06T13:37:39+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > I was wondering if tbl(1) wouldn't be better split into tbl(1) and > groff_tbl(7) [...] > I'd like to be able to refer to tbl(7) as a language when talking > about it as a language.
That's a reasonable request. I think Ingo already does this in mandoc.
> (and maybe a link page tbl(7)).
Yes, if '@g@' is empty (see my previous mail about *.[157].man), that
makes sense.[1]
> And, I think it also makes sense to separate documentation about the
> command and its options from documentation about the language.
Yes, particularly if I realize my project of fleshing out the eqn and
pic man pages to become comprehensive references.
On the other hand, tbl is somewhat feeble as "little languages" in the
Kernighan/Bentley sense go. It doesn't even support macro expansion!
;-)
Regards,
Branden
[1] The make(1) variable 'g' might be empty but the expansion of '@g@'
will never be. I tripped myself with this recently.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=8aaabf5af1c0272a3f2b4d0927dcc8efd99161af
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
