Follow-up Comment #11, bug #65474 (group groff):
[comment #10 comment #10:]
> [comment #9 comment #9:]
> Tadziu makes a cogent argument
(http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2021-03/msg00024.html) that the warning is not
spurious.
Could you explain why Tadziu's argument is cogent? I'm not following it.
Also, is groff purposely incompatible with traditional nroff when evaluating
.ie? Because that's what I'm observing. Consider the following input:
.pl 1
.de MY
.ie '\\$1'a' CASE a
.el .ie '\\$1'b' CASE b
.el CASE z
..
.ie '1'1' \{\
. ie '1'2'
. el .MY a
.\}
.el NOTREACHED
Solaris 10 /usr/bin/nroff outputs "CASE a", which is what I'd expect. gnroff
outputs "NOTREACHED", which is surprising. Tadziu's comment, if I understand
it correctly, says this should output both "CASE a" and "NOTREACHED", which
would be more surprising still.
Is there a simple example input that illustrates why
[https://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2021-03/msg00024.html Tadziu's comment] makes
sense?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65474>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
