Brian,
In the process of figuring out how to parse apart the original System` Symbols usage by using the function Information (and later WolframLanguageData) definitions I discovered many boxes formatting bugs (reported) and inconsistent handling of subscripts (v1 or v_1, and reported). Further, I have formally requested, that a function with several different usage definitions be returned as a list not a large text block that may or may not parse well into single usage statements.
Generally, I see the meta-template:
fname[arguments] usagetext. fname[arguments] usagetext. etc...
and the sometimes problematic
fname[arguments] usagetext.\nusagetext. fname[arguments] usagetext.\nusagetext.
Parsing for ". " marker can be brittle since its 2 chars not a single unique glyph marker; ". " would need to be enforced when a definition is created and saved.
Can the case be made, unless am missing something, for the following, as consistent even for code use (as long as the dev does not use ; in their usage definition), if a single text block is wanted:
fname[arguments] usagetext.;usagetext\nfname[arguments] usagetext.;nusagetext.
Further there is the parsing problems of this:
fname1[arguments] or fname2[arguments] usagetext.
Perhaps its better to do this which is easier to parse:
fname1[arguments] usagetext. fname2[arguments] usagetext.
If am misunderstanding anything, please inform me. :-)
Since definitions are at the core of any language, and at the heart of much of western intellectual thought for thousands of years, is there a formal style guide how to define usage correctly and can be easily parsed? Perhaps a definition checker possible using Wolfram's AI work? What makes up a robust, short, and clear usage definition?
Thanks for your help.
