> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's > any bug here : > > The .ul internal command draw an underline when possible, > and use italics when it's not possible. For example, on a > terminal without underlining capabilities, italics are used. > > .us is just an example of an handmade underlining > macro, which is not expected to be implemented in all the > macro sets.
The whole paragraph does not make sense if .ul is used. Why defining .us and not using it. This is a typo. troff doesn't underline by itself. One way is to write a custom macro (as .us) or use ms macro's .UL. .ul only underlines in nroff. Cheers, Carsten
