Kent Fredric posted on Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:23:59 +1300 as excerpted: > On 12 March 2015 at 15:19, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > >> Comments? > > > A less radical change would be some sort of tagging notation on each > feature to indicate their usage. > > That way, it doesn't impede the current audience who expects to be able > to browse the list alphabetically. > > ( I suggest this, because restructuring it radically will have potential > bikeshed drama of people not liking the new layout, so tag-style > metadata makes the levels visible without requiring a restructure )
Tags would be less radical, indeed, and an improvement from current, agreed. But as envisioned, the alphabetic order of all options (including those listed in the other sections, as I mentioned in the original proposal) would be maintained in the all options section, precisely because it remains useful to have an alphabetically ordered full-reference section. Tho as proposed, that all-options section may /optionally/ be moved into its own manpage, with an explicit note to that effect in the main manpage. Among other things that would avoid an already long manpage made longer by repeated option descriptions. But I don't feel strongly enough about such a split to make it a big deal if others don't like the idea, the the "optional" qualifier. IOW, people that didn't like the new layout could simply refer to the all- options section or separate manpage for the old alphabetically-ordered full reference layout, which should hopefully reduce resistance dramatically. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
