Re: ChangeLog fontifications

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > This ChangeLog style is a typographic nightmare IMHO.
>
> On the contrary, it looks quite nice.  IMO.

This is a misunderstanding.  I'm not talking about looking nice, I'm
talking about the typographical `correctness'.  As has been pointed
out by others, the grouping becomes artificial.  Besides this, it
isn't something used anywhere else in the English language, AFAIK:

  Imagine a sentence (consisting of nouns) (verbs, adjectives) (and
  other words) like this and you see what you mean.

I know that it is not of importance that a ChangeLog entry is
grammatically correct, but intentionally working against such rules is
plain wrong for me.  A good solution to make human and computerized
parsers happy could be this -- a traditional solution used by
typsetters since a few hundred years:

    * foo/bar (long_item_1, long_item_2,
        long_item_3, long_item_4,
        long_item_5): Explanation of long
        items 1 to five.

Or this (at the cost of making the entry longer):

    * foo/bar (long_item_1, long_item_2,
        long_item_3, long_item_4,
        long_item_5):
          Explanation of long items 1 to five.


Don't make man obey the tools, let's rather make the tools obey man!


     Werner