Updates for dashes, terminal, omitting output

[julian-cable]

No description provided.

[rclee33]

I have completed my review, and have shared some notes and suggested edits. Happy to discuss anything further, if that's helpful. Thank you!

[rclee33]

Suggested change

	In technical content, use a dash to show a range.
	Use an en dash to show a range, such as for page numbers, letters, pages, or dates.

[rclee33]

I don't think we need to specify "in technical content" here -- I moved that to the next sentence. As well, I think it's useful to include examples of the ranges that we're talking about.

[rclee33]

Suggested change

	Otherwise, use a colon or other suitable punctuation.
	Otherwise, do not use dashes in technical content.

[rclee33]

Since ALL dashes are banned in running text (besides ranges, already specified), I don't think we need to name any specific dashes here, since the fine distinctions between hyphens, em dashes, and en dashes don't matter. This is also where I think it makes sense to specify "in technical content" (because in other genres, dashes are fine/acceptable).

[rclee33]

Suggested change

	Do not use em dashes.
	Instead, use other punctuation marks, such as commas, parentheses, or a colon.

[rclee33]

I think it's useful to give folks alternatives.

[rclee33]

What do you think about including the definition for "command line" that we provide in the "terminal" entry? For example:

Use "command line" to refer to the prompt where commands are entered.
Use "command line" as a noun, and use "command-line" as an adjective.
For more details about using these terms, refer to the appropriate entries in...[link to IBM]

In general, it's more useful if we can provide direct guidance if we can, rather than only referring users to IBM. In this case, we're already providing a definition and usage example of "command line" in another entry, so it makes sense to include the same information in the main entry for "command line".

What do you think?

[rclee33]

A few thoughts here - I'm a little hesitant to share definitive guidelines about using the ellipsis notation for vertical columns of output, because that's not yet official guidance. (So far, it's only implemented in one course, and not documented elsewhere.)

Although, depending on the timing of this style guide release, maybe it can be official guidance by then. Perhaps we could qualify the guideline here, or frame it more clearly as an example, or another kind of omission or notation to consider? Or omit it? What do you think?

The following example is very useful, but also quite lengthy. We might consider cutting several lines of output (and using the correct notation, of course! =)

[rclee33]

Can "command line" and "shell prompt" be used interchangeably? I suspect not, but the framing here could suggest otherwise.

Initially, I was going to suggest adding a version of this definition (in line 99) to the "shell prompt" entry. But, looking at the current entry, I'm not sure whether they're entirely consistent.

Current entry for shell prompt:

Refers to the character at the beginning of the command line, and indicates that the shell is ready to accept commands. Do not use "command prompt", "terminal", or "shell".

To me, there's an apparent contradiction between the definition for "shell prompt" in the "terminal" entry, and the definition in the "shell prompt" entry. The "terminal" entry suggests that "command line" and "shell prompt" refer to the same thing (and thus could, by extension, perhaps be used interchangeably). On the other hand, the "shell prompt" entry says not to use "command prompt", suggesting that these two prompts are different.

I do think we should follow the general principle that if we define a term in one entry, then we should include the same information in the "main" entry for the term in question. However, I understand that this quickly becomes complicated when dealing with a set of related terms. As a minimum viable product, though, the terms in question are: "terminal", "command line", and "shell prompt" (based on this update). Perhaps we can align these three entries in this update (and not worry about other related terms at the moment)?

[rclee33]

Looks good to me! Well done!