On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 01:12:44 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > My feeling is csh(1) is the odd one out here. The amount of > cross references from csh(1) to section 2 looks excessive.
Agreed. I noticed this but it wasn't within the scope of the diff I was writing :-) > For the umask builtin command, i kind of see the point of pointing > to section 2 - but to chmod(2) where the bits are explained, umask(2) > being less relevant, and it would also seem more useful close to the > explanation of the umask builtin rather than below SEE ALSO. > > > Part of me feels like _if_ they're going to mention umask(2), > > setrlimit(2), and sigaction(2), then they should mention chdir(2), > > as the other classic "must be in the shell" syscall. <shrug> > > The question to ask is: is it likely that somebody who decided to > look up csh(1) will also benefit from reading chdir(2), in the > same context? I don't quite see yet why that might help. > > I'd rather move into the opposite direction, see below. OK millert@ - todd
