On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 10:41:32PM +0200, Leon Fischer wrote: > > > > yes, fair point. i also dislike excess markup. but i think in the first > > sentence it is not excess, it is explanation. i mean "duration"is marked > > up. > > > > so that first sentence should try to talk about all those arg elements, > > and mark each of them up. later, you can try and avoid being excessive. > > > > The > > .Nm > > utility executes > > .Ar command , > > with any > > .Ar args , > > and kills it if it is still running after the specified > > .Ar duration . > > > > sth like that? > > > > but i agree that you don;t want to keep continually marking it up. > > If there's bikeshedding to be done, I'd argue for an existing standard. > doas(1) doesn't markup "command" and doesn't mention "args". rm(1) > doesn't markup "file". It's already clear how they're meant to be used. >
i would argue that "file" is pretty much unambiguous, and in 10 zillion pages, whereas "args" is not. all commands have args. this command has args, and specifies another command which can have args. i don;t understand why you are differentiating between "command" as not an argument and "duration" as an argument. they are both arguments: either mark them up or don;t. if you don't, you will be flying in the face of how our manuals are written, but at least you will be doing it consistently/ the fact that you are not explaining "args" does not really justify anything. why mention "args" at all? isn;t it clear that a timeout command that didn;t accept commands with arguments wouldn't work? yes doas is different. yes it does not mark up command in the first sentence. it marks it up in the second sentence. like, big win. jmc
