Follow-up Comment #10, bug #65108 (group groff): [comment #8 comment #8:] > [comment #7 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" > > There may in fact be one. It could be a means of obtaining an ordinary character (or the handful of special characters in Unicode Basic Latin) when said characters in their conventional forms are at that time subject to `tr` translation.
This was a bogus digression. `tr` affects only characters that are sent to
the output for transformation to glyphs, and only at the time that this
happens.
$ cat EXPERIMENTS/tr-works-only-on-output.roff
.nf
.tr ab
.ds a aunt
\*a
.tr aa
\*a
.pl \n(nlu
$ nroff EXPERIMENTS/tr-works-only-on-output.roff
bunt
aunt
So, disregard.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65108>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
