On 06/28/2013 10:09 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> On 06/28/2013 09:47 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>
>>> For a source perspective, your version is easier to read, but from a
>>> rendered perspective, it's not. The problem is a long list of very
>>> similar directory names and it's hard to visualize the similar vs
>>> dissimilar parts in the rendered book.
>>>
>>> -- Bruce
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't really understand what you want to say. I never noticed any
>> problems with rendering of the pages as they were before.
>
> There isn't a problem with rendering. The problem is reading. When
> most people read a long line with repeated contents, the brain tends to
> misinterpret the line. Not explicitly repeating the stem of the
> directories makes it easier to read.
>
> Read
>
> /usr/include/subdir1/subdir2, /usr/include/subdir1/subdir3,
> /usr/include/subdir1/subdir4
>
> vs
>
> /usr/include/subdir1/subdir{2,3,4}
>
Not everyone might understand this and not anyone who uses a shell that
isn't bash might use this for something (I have no idea, just wild
guess). I still prefer the old way though.
> Of course this can be overdone with multiple inclusions such as
> a/{b,c/{d,e}}
>
> I wouldn't have a problem with your layout if it was vertically aligned,
> but that differs from the rest of the book.
>
> /usr/include/subdir1/subdir2
> /usr/include/subdir1/subdir3
> /usr/include/subdir1/subdir4
>
> -- Bruce
>
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
