Sudipto Mallick:
> I am new here, I do not know whose approval I need
> to push the changes. Whom to ask for approval?
Not being a contributor to TCC, I can't tell you.
Since nobody has answered, chances are no one among
the readers of this mailing list is interested in
tranditional hand-
On 12/26/20, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> I agree that *roff syntax is simultaneosly concise,
> writable, and readable, whereas texinfo is a huge
> package with a verbose syntax and dependencies on
> LaTeX and other third-party formatters. That said,
> *roff would be the natural choice for TCC
Sudipto Mallick to Michael Matz:
> As I am reformatting it, I do not find it hard to
> write. It must have been writable enough to be
> used in writing almost all manual pages in OpenBSD
> etc. Also current setup depends on perl to be in-
> stalled, which is not a hard requirement, but
On 12/26/20, Michael Matz wrote:
> In which sense? tcc.1 is a generated file, it's not supposed to be
> edited. The source is tcc-doc.texi, i.e. texinfo, via texi2pod and
> pod2man. So, are you sure you're barking at the right tree?
> While -mdoc certainly is nicer than -man it's both trumped (
On 12/26/20, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> What did not you like?
Uglyness and unnecessary bloat.
> While processing, GNU
> Troff reported the following warnings:
>
>mdoc warning: A .Bl directive has no matching .El (#287)
>mdoc warning: Empty input line #376
>mdoc warning: Empty input line
Hello,
On Fri, 25 Dec 2020, Sudipto Mallick wrote:
When I compiled a recent version of tinycc from mob, I looked at the
source of the manpage. I don't like it.
In which sense? tcc.1 is a generated file, it's not supposed to be
edited. The source is tcc-doc.texi, i.e. texinfo, via texi2pod
Sudipto Mallick:
> When I compiled a recent version of tinycc from mob, I
> looked at the source of the manpage. I don't like it.
What did not you like?
> I learnt about the mdoc(7) format for writing man pages
> and thought to use that format for the tcc man page. The
> rewrite is attached.
Th
