Re: syntax of options in man1

> I think there should be a separation between an introduction to the
> entire system (maybe this could be intro(0)), and an introduction to the
> first section of the manual (intro(1)).

I agree. In the early days, at least, there was such a section, called
"getting started". I like the idea of calling it intro(0). The very name
suggests that there are more intro(.) pages. Elegant!

Doug


On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 1:19 PM Douglas McIlroy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think there should be a separation between an introduction to the
> > entire system (maybe this could be intro(0)), and an introduction to the
> > first section of the manual (intro(1)).
>
> I agree. In the early days, at least, there was such a section, called
> "getting started". I like the idea of calling it intro(0). The very name
> suggests that there are more intro(.) pages. Elegant!
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> Doug
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 10:45 AM Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [Added linux-man@]
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> On 2026-07-16T09:46:25-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
>> > Here's a typical option heading (from tail(1))
>> >   *    -n, --lines=[+]NUM*
>> >
>> > It is tempting to assume (incorrectly) that the short alternative is -n=4.
>> > As far as I can tell, the convention that "=" is part of only the long
>> > alternative is described nowhere.
>>
>> Agree.  I've had that concern for a long time.
>>
>> > I think the description belongs in intro(1).
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>> > Incidentally, the actual content of intro(1) is absurdly bloated and much
>> > of it is way off topic.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>> I think there should be a separation between an introduction to the
>> entire system (maybe this could be intro(0)), and an introduction to the
>> first section of the manual (intro(1)).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> Have a lovely day!
>> Alex
>>
>> > Doug
>>
>> --
>> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>