Follow-up Comment #9, bug #55155 (project groff): [comment #8 comment #8:] > I would therefore propose changing this behavior, such that `tr` > does _not_ apply to the RHS of `char` character definitions.
I do feel like this is more in line with this sentence from the info manual: "the first argument of 'tr' should be an input character or entity, and the second one a glyph entity." (These words remain unchanged since being added in 2002, [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=21260e1c commit 21260e1c].) Although the docs are not explicit about this, I think intuitively the RHS of a .char definition wouldn't be considered "an input character or entity." > If you agree, then we should shop this change to the groff list > to see if it draws protest from anyone relying on this behavior. Yeah, some groffers do exploit obscure behavior. On the plus side, .char and its family originate with groff (though at least Heirloom also implements them), so we don't have to worry about deviating from AT&T. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55155> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
