Follow-up Comment #2, bug #66586 (group groff): At 2024-12-31T03:14:37-0500, Dave wrote: > Follow-up Comment #1, bug #66586 (group groff): > > How does this differ from bug #61450?
It doesn't. I had simply forgotten about that ticket.
> In that bug, you said the solution "might be as simple as adding a
> conditional to `skip_line()`," which is exactly what your patch here
> does.
Yes. Though Ralph also asked for this to be gated behind a warning, and
your reasoning in comment #3 suggests to me that it should become part
of the planned "style" warning category. That way in the event a
request's semantics are extended in a future _groff_, a person who has
otherwise diligently cleaned up their style warnings can simply shut off
the "style" warning category if they ever have to build a document using
an older _groff_ that doesn't recognize the extension.
I'll close the ticket.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66586>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
