Re: Lua modules, paths, man pages etc.

[Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost>]

Am 07.10.11 19:20, schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Marc Balmer wrote:
> 
>> Am 07.10.11 13:02, schrieb Simon Burge:
>>> Marc Balmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Man pages.
>>>>
>>>> I think that Lua modules should be documented.  I suggest a new chapter
>>>> 'l' for man pages that document Lua modules, /usr/share/man/manl/ whould
>>>> then be the place.
>>>
>>> catl/manl is already in our man.conf.  It's been around since at least
>>> the BSD 4.2 days for local man pages.
>>>
>>> If these are for libraries then section 3 would be the logical place.
>>> We (seem to) support 3f for fortran from man.conf, so how about 3l for
>>> lua?
>>
>> Yes, 'l' was a bad idea.  '3l' might be possible, but 3 is for C LIBRARY
>> FUNCTIONS,
> 
> intro(3) doesn't specifically say that
> 
> DESCRIPTION
>      This section provides an overview of the system libraries, their func-
>      tions, error returns and other common definitions and concepts.  Most of
>      these functions are available from the standard C library, libc.
> 
> (I think section .3l is good :)
> 
>> Am 07.10.11 13:13, schrieb Jukka Ruohonen:
>>> Could you write a luastyle(7)? It might include some best practices,
>>> idioms, etc., and it would guarantee readability over the long haul.
>>
>> Well, the modules I am talking about here are written in C, so I guess
>> our normal style applies.  But I like the idea of best practices and idoms.
> 
> and intro(3l) could be a good place for a list of that stuff (even
> style(3l) if you prefer)

so we go for 3l for Lua stuff, for the time being?  Everyone fine with that?