Follow-up Comment #5, bug #62776 (project groff):
[comment #4 comment #4:]
> 2. Invoking a non-breaking request with the no-break control
> character; the user will think they're saying something
> meaningful, but they are not.
One may not be saying something meaningful to groff, but may be to a human
reader. For example, if a user-defined macro should not cause a break, and
that macro invokes five requests, two of which cause a break, then as far as
roff is concerned, only those two need the ' at the start of the line. But as
a courtesy to readers (including the future version of oneself), one might
well write them all with a leading ' so that it's clear at a glance that the
macro does not cause a break, without the reader having to have memorized, or
having to look up, which requests break.
Semi-relatedly, a more warning-worthy situation is one that came up recently
on the list, the construction:
'br
It's not even clear what this _should_ do (I think it turned out to be a
no-op, at least in groff), so that's probably worth warning about.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62776>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
