util-linux/Documentation/howto-usage-function.txt

135 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Example file
------------
Refer to the ./boilerplate.c example file while reading this howto.
How a usage text is supposed to look
------------------------------------
The usage() output format is: Usage section, command description one-liner,
Options section (see below), special sections like 'Available columns', and
the last line is either the man page reference or an empty line. The output
begins with, and each of the above are separated by, one empty line.
The Usage section contains the synopsis line that describes how to compose
the command. Sometimes you may need multiple synopsis lines (see below).
Only the synopsis and option lines are indented. Indent is one space (0x40).
Option lines do not use line-ending punctuation. Other sentences do.
Notations: diamond brackets are used to mark an argument to be filled in;
square brackets are used to mark anything that is optional, such as optional
command arguments, or optional option arguments. In the later case the '='
character is required in between the option and argument with no whitespace;
three consecutive dots means the unlimited repetition of the preceding.
The short option is always written first, followed by the long option. They
are separated with a comma and one space. Lonely short or long options do
not affect their alignment. That is, they must be in their respective column.
Below, in between the snips, is an example of what the usage output should
look like.
-- snip
Usage:
program [options] <file> [...]
Short program description, ideally one line only.
Options:
-n, --no-argument option does not use argument
--optional[=<arg>] option argument is optional
-r, --required <arg> option requires an argument
-z no long option
--xyzzy a long option only
-e, --extremely-long-long-option
use next line for description when needed
-l, --long-explanation an example of very verbose, and chatty option
description on two, or multiple lines, where the
continuation lines are indented by two spaces
-f, --foobar next option description resets indent
-h, --help display this help and exit
-V, --version output version information and exit
For more details see program(1).
-- snip
Option descriptions
-------------------
This information also applies to other option-like arguments. That is,
arguments starting with '-'. Such as: functions, commands, and so forth.
An option description should not exceed the width of 80 characters. If
you need a longer description, use multiple lines and indentation.
The description text begins from the point of the longest option plus two
spaces. If adding a new option would necessitate a re-indentation of the
descriptions, it either has to be done, or the new option should begin its
description on the next line. Usually the later is better.
An argument is preferably worded appropriately. For example, if an option
expects a number as argument, '<num>' is a suitable argument indicator.
The order of the options has no special meaning, with the exception of
--help and --version which are expected to be last ones in the list.
Usage function
--------------
The usage() function will never return. It must only be called by -h/--help.
All other cases use errtryhelp(EXIT_FAILURE).
Section headers, man page, version, help, and other components of usage()
have string constants defined in 'include/c.h' which must be used. See the
example file listed at the top of this document. The help and version options
are combined into a single macro which takes an argument for the column that
their descriptions will begin on: USAGE_HELP_OPTIONS(<num>). This allows
them to align properly with the other options.
In the code, all option strings must start at the same position.
See here what this means:
printf(out, _(" -x[=<foo>] default foo is %s"), x);
puts( _(" -y some text"), out);
Be nice to translators. One gettext entry should be one option, no more,
no less. For example:
docs: usage function and gettext I made following survey which was sent to all email addresses in po/ directory that had the on-going millenium as time when translator had been active. There are two quite common styles to write a command usage print out, which one you prefer? 1. Each option as separated translatable string. 18 votes 2. Or the whole thing as one big output. 1 vote 3. No preference. 1 vote The questionaire had also free text field asking 'Why do you prefer that?', and here are the answers. [Separately] It is easier to follow changes with the translations. If you change only one line or two, the big string would change to fuzzy and I have to check the whole thing to see what was changed in the original. If the changed line is a single string, the string to check is a lot shorter. [No preference] Usually, if there is no reason to separate strings, better keep them together so that the context is obvious. In the case at hand, it might help if in some language e.g. one translated line is too wide for the screen. This is unlikely, but... OTOH, with this solution, if you change one string the whole translation will be discarded until a translator comes and updates it... [Separately] It may be a bit harder to get the formatting right, but it is much easier in maintenance. With one option changing, the translator immediately sees the spot. And even with a lazy translator, program author will have all the options translated that have not changed at all. [Separately] First one would be more in elegant I believe [Separately] I prefer to have them separately because they don't form a single text paragraph. In other words, they can be translated separately because they are complete and separate "sentences". Of course consistency of format and word choices need to be taken care of, but the fact that the messages appear next to each other in the PO file should be enough. Also if the options are not translated separately, adding or editing one option causes the translation of all options to become fuzzy and if for some reason it isn't checked before next release (happens sometimes), all of them will show untranslated to the user. [Separately] Translations are a lot easier to update that way. If an option is added, removed or changed, only a small amount of text becomes fuzzy. If everything is in one big output, a lot of text becomes fuzzy, and you have to read a lot more text to discover what exactly changed. [Separately] When updating a fuzzy translation, with one big output it's very tedious and error-prone to find out the reason for fuzziness, i.e. what actually has changed in the msgid. [Separately] Way easier to translate, and especially to spot translation updates when one string gets removed, added or modified. [Separately] Makes translation memory more efficient. Some hard terms in the list don't prevent translation of the whole block. Actually the beginning of the strings don't need any translation ta all before [] part. Information about the context can be provided in comments or the context parameter. [Separately] Please consider the case when a part of string, (= msgid) is changed. It is marked as fuzzy in the .po files, we translators have to check whole sentences for the difference between it and previous version. [Separately] Every sentence must be a separate translation unit. [One big output] for performance to ouput strings [Separately] In the second case, if only one option changes (or a new one is added), the translator will see as if all of the options changed, having to find out which one of them is really new or has actually changed. Also, if the translator has had no time to update the string, only one of the options will be shown in the original language (which is arguably ugly, but better than nothing for many users). [Separately] It's easier to translate the options separately using translation memory. [Separately] Easier to separate and see changes [Separately] more translator friendly [Separately] From the user POV I found the separeted version more interesting because if a maintainer can't update the translation fast enough between releases the user will still get the current translated string with the new ones untraslated. From the translator POV the big output will give more context information as one can see the whole command options. With a new string added while the rest is translated having some context can be more difficult. [Separately] Additions to the list or changes to one options means you don't have to check all lines each time. So unless you have very, _very_ good reason you should not output all usage as one big table. This implies also that when large usage output is changed it should be split to small hunks. That may be a bit more work once, but the next change will pay the extrawork off so never hesitate when splitting. Reference: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QKZ75HK Signed-off-by: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi>
2013-01-22 17:27:00 -06:00
puts(_(" --you-there be nice\n"), out);
puts(_(" -2 <whom> translators\n"), out);
puts(_(" -t, --hey are doing a job that we probably cannot,"
docs: usage function and gettext I made following survey which was sent to all email addresses in po/ directory that had the on-going millenium as time when translator had been active. There are two quite common styles to write a command usage print out, which one you prefer? 1. Each option as separated translatable string. 18 votes 2. Or the whole thing as one big output. 1 vote 3. No preference. 1 vote The questionaire had also free text field asking 'Why do you prefer that?', and here are the answers. [Separately] It is easier to follow changes with the translations. If you change only one line or two, the big string would change to fuzzy and I have to check the whole thing to see what was changed in the original. If the changed line is a single string, the string to check is a lot shorter. [No preference] Usually, if there is no reason to separate strings, better keep them together so that the context is obvious. In the case at hand, it might help if in some language e.g. one translated line is too wide for the screen. This is unlikely, but... OTOH, with this solution, if you change one string the whole translation will be discarded until a translator comes and updates it... [Separately] It may be a bit harder to get the formatting right, but it is much easier in maintenance. With one option changing, the translator immediately sees the spot. And even with a lazy translator, program author will have all the options translated that have not changed at all. [Separately] First one would be more in elegant I believe [Separately] I prefer to have them separately because they don't form a single text paragraph. In other words, they can be translated separately because they are complete and separate "sentences". Of course consistency of format and word choices need to be taken care of, but the fact that the messages appear next to each other in the PO file should be enough. Also if the options are not translated separately, adding or editing one option causes the translation of all options to become fuzzy and if for some reason it isn't checked before next release (happens sometimes), all of them will show untranslated to the user. [Separately] Translations are a lot easier to update that way. If an option is added, removed or changed, only a small amount of text becomes fuzzy. If everything is in one big output, a lot of text becomes fuzzy, and you have to read a lot more text to discover what exactly changed. [Separately] When updating a fuzzy translation, with one big output it's very tedious and error-prone to find out the reason for fuzziness, i.e. what actually has changed in the msgid. [Separately] Way easier to translate, and especially to spot translation updates when one string gets removed, added or modified. [Separately] Makes translation memory more efficient. Some hard terms in the list don't prevent translation of the whole block. Actually the beginning of the strings don't need any translation ta all before [] part. Information about the context can be provided in comments or the context parameter. [Separately] Please consider the case when a part of string, (= msgid) is changed. It is marked as fuzzy in the .po files, we translators have to check whole sentences for the difference between it and previous version. [Separately] Every sentence must be a separate translation unit. [One big output] for performance to ouput strings [Separately] In the second case, if only one option changes (or a new one is added), the translator will see as if all of the options changed, having to find out which one of them is really new or has actually changed. Also, if the translator has had no time to update the string, only one of the options will be shown in the original language (which is arguably ugly, but better than nothing for many users). [Separately] It's easier to translate the options separately using translation memory. [Separately] Easier to separate and see changes [Separately] more translator friendly [Separately] From the user POV I found the separeted version more interesting because if a maintainer can't update the translation fast enough between releases the user will still get the current translated string with the new ones untraslated. From the translator POV the big output will give more context information as one can see the whole command options. With a new string added while the rest is translated having some context can be more difficult. [Separately] Additions to the list or changes to one options means you don't have to check all lines each time. So unless you have very, _very_ good reason you should not output all usage as one big table. This implies also that when large usage output is changed it should be split to small hunks. That may be a bit more work once, but the next change will pay the extrawork off so never hesitate when splitting. Reference: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QKZ75HK Signed-off-by: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi>
2013-01-22 17:27:00 -06:00
" or how is your klingon?\n"), out);
When existing usage output is changed, and it happens to be one big text,
split it into chunks the size of one option. The extra work this will entail
for translators will pay off later; the next string change will not force a
search of the long fuzzy text for what was changed, where, how, and whether
it was the only change.
Synopsis
--------
You may need to use multiple synopsis lines to show that a command does
fundamentally different things depending on the options and/or arguments.
For example, ionice either changes the priority of a running command, or
executes a program with a defined priority. Therefore it is reasonable
to have two synopsis lines:
ionice [options] -p <pid> ...
ionice [options] <command> [<arg> ...]
Note that the synopsis is not meant to be a repetition of the options
section. The fundamental difference in execution is a bit difficult to
define. The command author, package maintainer or patch submitter will
usually know when it should be done that way.