Re: [PATCH 0/3] Clean up crypto documentation

[Joe Perches]

On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 20:06 +0000, Gary R Hook wrote:

Hi Gary.

> On 6/24/19 2:30 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-06-24 at 19:07 +0000, Hook, Gary wrote:
> > > Tidy up the crypto documentation by filling in some variable
> > > descriptions, make some grammatical corrections, and enhance
> > > formatting.
> > 
> > While this seems generally OK, please try not to make the
> > readability of the source _text_ less intelligible just
> > to enhance the output formatting of the html.
> > 
> > e.g.:
> > 
> > Unnecessary blank lines separating function descriptions
> > Removing space alignment from bullet point descriptions
> 
> Apologies. I generally consider white space a Good Thing,
> but will take your note and not do that. The blank lines I
> added do not affect the output, so I should not have done
> that.
> 
> Also, I turned sentences into bulleted lists here, so I'm not
> clear on whether that was a Bad Thing or not.

To me, using bulleted lists are not a bad thing at all
but are quite the opposite for humans to read.

> Seems more legible
> to me all the way around, but I clearly could be incorrect.

Not at all.

> I agree that mucking with alignment is a bad thing, and would not
> intentionally do so. That said, if you would please elaborate on
> any mistakes I've made?
> 
> Finally, would you prefer a v2 of the patch set? Happy to do
> whatever is preferred, of course.

Whatever Jonathan decides is fine with me.
Mine was just a plea to avoid unnecessarily
making the source text harder to read as
that's what I mostly use.

I don't know if this extension is valid yet, but
I believe just using <function_name>() is more
readable as text than ``<function_name>`` or
:c:func:`<function_name>`

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190425200125.12302-1-corbet@xxxxxxx/T/

I prefer the automatic approach over the manual
marking of functions as ideally sphinx formatting
should not overly impact the source text.