Update of bug #65474 (group groff):
Summary: spurious "warning: unbalanced 'el' request" when
formatting zic(8) from TZDB project => [troff] spurious "warning: unbalanced
'el' request" when formatting zic(8) from TZDB project
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #9:
Dave's right.
See bug #60260.
There would appear to be 3 issues here, so I won't actually close any of these
as duplicates.
Bug #59434 says that _groff_ documentation doesn't adequately explain this
stuff. I am now not surprised, since _groff_ matches `el` request to `ie`
ones (in the absence of explicit bracing, at least), differently from AT&T
troff. So someone trying to document this matter on the assumption that they
behaved the same would likely run into trouble upon conducting simple
experiments.
Bug #60260 regards the actual interpretation of the formatter's language, and
control flow therein.
I'll leave this one to cope with the issue of when we should throw a warning,
how.
At present, I suspect I'll seize the current `el` request for
[https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62776 my desired `style` warning category].[1]
I partially agree with Bjarni that such diagnostics should exist. I disagree
with his discursive hectoring about how people should write their _roff_
documents. I'm comfortable exhorting the user with style warnings and advice
in documentation, but not with treating the exercise of well-defined (if
lousily documented) language semantics of 50 years' standing as errors.
To be concrete, I think the input:
$ cat EXPERIMENTS/el.roff
.el .tm this is unreachable code
$ nroff -ww EXPERIMENTS/el.roff
troff:EXPERIMENTS/el.roff:1: warning: unbalanced 'el' request
..._should_ warn, if style warnings are enabled.
But the first thing to cope with is #60260. Let us then see if Paul's input
makes noise at all.
[1] ...retaining recognition of "el" as an undocumented synonym of "style" to
accommodate old scripts, yadda yadda yadda.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65474>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
