Update of bug #65108 (group groff):
Status: Need Info => None
Assigned to: barx => None
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #7:
One additional comment on the proposal:
[comment #3 comment #3:]
> Only codes in the range 00-1F and 80-FF are accepted in
> [`\[u00XX]`] syntax; those in the range 20-7F are ignored with a
> diagnostic advising the user to deobfuscate their inputs.
I realize there's no good reason for a user to type "\[u0045]" instead of
"E"... but at the same time there seems no reason for groff to object to it.
It's ugly but not ambiguous or any harder to parse than the accepted ranges;
if anything, a diagnostic seems to complicate the code, which could otherwise
handle every \[u00XX] the same way.
Even if you're wedded to the diagnostic, I'd say at least process the
character. Ignoring it seems needlessly punitive.
(Taking ticket out of "Need Info" assuming comment #5 addressed your
questions; let me know if I've overlooked anything.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65108>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
