Re: \i and \ir separated by \if now...

On 27.05.18 05:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Vianello, Daniel A" <Daniel(dot)Vianello(at)charter(dot)com> writes:
>>> Uh, why would we list \ir before the simpler \i?
>
>> So that the request is to merge \ir into the \i section (not before \i but part of that discusstion) rather than being separated by the comparatively longer section for \if
>
> It was, in fact, like that initially. Peter E. changed it in commit
> 0d9bdbcaae0, without any discussion that I remember seeing. I've never
> been very happy with "alphabetical order trumps all other considerations"
> as a documentation rule, and this seems like a good example of why not.

The rule is, alphabetical order trumps no consideration. ;-)

I can see the point here. Merging \i and \ir into one item (with two
<term>s) might make sense. However, someone doing a mental binary
search across a man page would surely be confused if they don't find \ir
after \if. The question is, are they coming to the page to look up \ir,
or are they coming there to learn about groups of related commands?
Another way to associate \i and \ir is with "see also" type references.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services