Follow-up Comment #3, bug #65474 (group groff):
This is neither a spurious nor a "false positive" but a
legitimate remark about the code.
I don't see a balance (like a two arm weight balance) with
separate left and right loads.
The warning is falsely interpreted (translated) by humans.
The translator is not happy about how the instructions are
written, they are not informative enough for an unambiguous
processing.
The writer's duty is to supply the translator with all
necessary information to make its work efficient, correct and
without any doubt.
When humans look at the code, they add (get, have) information
that the translator does not have.
.ie \n(.g groff
.el .ie t troff
.el neither groff nor troff
So simply adding the needed information for a unique
interpretation is
.ie \n(.g groff
.el \{ .ie t troff
.el neither groff nor troff \}
which is not visible enough and not an enough structured style,
changing to
.ie \n(.g groff
.el \{\
. ie t troff
. el neither groff nor troff
.\}
makes the "balance" visible at first glance.
In this case one can look at "groff" as being a (minimal) "code
and style checker".
The false interpretation (translation) of warnings by humans is
thus more common than one might suspect.
Changing the code in "groff" to eliminate such a warning is
simply censorship and sabotage.
N.B.
The showed warning "el" (code = 16) should be elevated to
a default status.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65474>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
