Follow-up Comment #19, bug #66054 (group groff): So to be fair, there is a behavior change from _groff_ 1.23.0.
$ printf '.pl 1v\n.ll 1n\n.phcode \\[e aa]\nr\\[e aa]sume\n' |
~/groff-stable/bin/nroff -Wbreak
résume
$ printf '.pl 1v\n.ll 1n\n.phcode \\[e aa]\nr\\[e aa]sume\n' | nroff -Wbreak
\['e] 233
ré‐
sume
...and our new friend `phcode` tells us why.
In _groff_ 1.23.0, é had a hyphenation code of 0.
In _groff_ 1.24.0, it has a hyphenation code of 233 (because these are set up
in "latin1.tmac" now).
It's up to localization macro files to decide which letters, if any, should be
moved into the same equivalence classes as basic Latin letters.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66054>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
