documentation style question

[John W. Eaton]

I'd like to be consistent in the way we document functions like grid 
that have a number of different options.

In older versions of Octave, we had

## @deftypefn  {Function File} {} grid (@var{arg})
## @deftypefnx {Function File} {} grid ("minor", @var{arg2})
## @deftypefnx {Function File} {} grid (@var{hax}, @dots{})
## Force the display of a grid on the plot.
## The argument may be either @code{"on"}, or @code{"off"}.
## If it is omitted, the current grid state is toggled.
## ...

so we showed a small number of different forms and explained the valid 
values for the arguments.

Now we have

## @deftypefn  {Command} {} grid
## @deftypefnx {Command} {} grid on
## @deftypefnx {Command} {} grid off
## @deftypefnx {Command} {} grid minor
## @deftypefnx {Command} {} grid minor on
## @deftypefnx {Command} {} grid minor off
## @deftypefnx {Function File} {} grid (@var{hax}, @dots{})
## Control the display of plot grid lines.
##
## The function state input may be either @qcode{"on"} or @qcode{"off"}.
## If it is omitted, the current grid state is toggled.

so we are enumerating all the options.  The following description no 
longer seems to apply (what input state?) so it seems like it should be 
edited.

Do people prefer the current way of listing all the possibilities?  I'm 
working on adding the zoom function and if documented this way, there 
will be 10 lines enumerating the different ways it can be called.

Also, why distinguish between Command and Function File now that any 
function that accepts character string arguments can be called with 
"command" syntax?

jwe