Re: [RFC PATCH] Replacing "master-slave" terminology for pseudoterminals

["Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\) via Libc-alpha" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>]

Hello Carlos,

Thanks for looking at the patch.

On 7/30/20 6:06 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 7/29/20 6:39 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> As per some discussion on libc-alpha [1], many of us are interested in
>> finding a replacement for the problemantic master-slave terminology
>> used in the description of pseudoterminals.
>>
>> Elliot Hughes (enh@) suggested a replacement based on an idea from 
>> an analogous change in the golang libraries, and I've taken a shot 
>> at implementing that idea in a branch [2] of man-pages. The affected
>> pages are:
>>
>>  man2/ioctl_tty.2    | 23 +++++++++++--------
>>  man2/poll.2         |  3 ++-
>>  man3/getpt.3        |  2 +-
>>  man3/grantpt.3      | 17 +++++++-------
>>  man3/openpty.3      | 35 ++++++++++++++++------------
>>  man3/posix_openpt.3 | 10 ++++----
>>  man3/ptsname.3      | 10 ++++----
>>  man3/ttyname.3      |  2 +-
>>  man3/unlockpt.3     | 11 +++++----
>>  man4/pts.4          | 26 ++++++++++++---------
>>  man7/pty.7          | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>  11 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
>>
>> Eventually, I think we should take this discussion also to the 
>> mailing list, and also see if we can raise this within the POSIX 
>> committee. But let's see if we can fist off find some terminology
>> that seems agreeable.
>>
>> I've added the full patch below. I am myself still reflecting on 
>> the change. At times, the language feels a little clunky, but overall
>> I don't hate the result. I welcome comments from all, and especially
>> I'd be interested in feedback from Elliot and from Zack, who was 
>> planning to work on this issue in the glibc documentation.
> 
> Overall I agree with Elliott that the changes are positive and make the
> pages clearer. In some case I find the verbosity slightly longer than
> I would want for reading in English. 

I know what you mean. One reason for that verbosity is the need to
clearly distinguish "pseudoterminal device/end" from "pseudoterminal
device pair". It's hard to avoid being wordy there.

> Since I have an EE background I also
> find multiplexer more natural, but I got lost down the "agent noun from
> a verb" rabbit hole and I agree with either position.

I was unsure of which to use. It seems both are used, but some quick 
checking just now shows that "multiplexer" is the rather more
widespread spelling, so I've changed it.

Thanks,

Michael



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/