Follow-up Comment #15, bug #65474 (group groff): [comment #14 comment #14:] > The example shows a bug in groff or an interpretation as in some > other language.
This comment is not helpful when you don't specify _which example you're talking about_. There are several in this ticket's traffic. > That interpretation is not mentioned in > "https://troff.org/54.pdf"; (Troff User's Manual, Nov 1992; > chapter 16). Despite its status as religious scripture among some _groff_ mailing list subscribers, that document is not a complete specification of the language. Where it is lacking, we must supplement it with observations of extant implementations. And even then we are not bound by the precedents of those implementations. But if _groff_'s behavior differs, it should do so for a good reason. > The 'ie' request has nothing to process on the same (logical) line, A newline is not nothing. It is syntactically significant, and puts a break on the output. > so it grabs the next line. The "grabbing" of the next line is because that's how the formatter operates even in the absence of control flow requests. > Similar "skipping the new line character" is also shown with > '\{' at the end of a line, instead of '\{\' (block begins on the > next line). The newline is not "skipped" in the former case, but becomes a break. Please do more research before opining further on this ticket. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65474> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
