Re: questioning doc policy for @item

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:29:35AM -0000, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> 
> Graham Percival Saturday, November 20, 2010 12:44 AM
> 
> >GDP only covered about 30% of the docs, and didn't strictly
> >enforce the doc policy even within those areas, that's not a good
> >reason to change the policy.
> 
> +1.  In the GDP'd parts of the NR there are only 7 exceptions.
> (and in vocal none :)
> 
> >Ok, how about saying that you can have
> >
> >@itemize
> >@item foo
> >@item bar
> >@end itemize
> >
> >as long as each item is less than a line.
> 
> I'm happy with this

Ok, it's official.

> >If there's multiple lines involved, then do the full
> >
> >@itemize
> >@item foo
> >far
> 
> No, I don't like this.  Too cluttered.

Excellent!  I hated the look of that, but I was trying to be
diplomatic/compromise-ing (hmm, that word has a very different
meaning from "compromising")

This one is officially out.  And if anybody complains, I can point
them at you.  :)

> >or
> >
> >@itemize
> >@item
> >foo far
> 
> This is best, but I'd prefer a blank line before and after every
> @item
> including the first one (IOW after @itemize as well) as long as this
> looks OK in info.

I'm ok with that.  For clarify, you mean "a blank line before
every @item, and before the @end itemize".  I mean, you don't want

@itemize

@item

foo

@item

bar

@end itemize



Who wants to edit the CG for this?  James is away for a few days,
so there's no point leaving it as a "learn how to use git"
exercise.  Somebody please edit the CG and push (no reitveld
necessary).

Cheers,
- Graham