Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66700 (group groff): At 2025-01-23T08:32:23-0500, Deri James wrote: > Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66700 (group groff): > > Does this mean that adding a valid unit specifier to a valid single > character named register is no longer accepted?
It's "accepted", but warned about. The (non-)interpretaton of excess
scaling units has not changed. You will notice that the commit did not
change the _semantics_ of numeric expression interpretation.
diff --git a/src/roff/troff/reg.cpp b/src/roff/troff/reg.cpp
index 7daf30912..57f10b5a7 100644
--- a/src/roff/troff/reg.cpp
+++ b/src/roff/troff/reg.cpp
@@ -323,8 +323,14 @@ void define_register()
register_dictionary.define(nm, r);
}
r->set_value(v);
- if (tok.is_space() && has_arg() && read_measurement(&v, 'u'))
- r->set_increment(v);
+ if (tok.is_space()) {
+ if (has_arg() && read_measurement(&v, 'u'))
+ r->set_increment(v);
+ }
+ else if (has_arg() && !tok.is_tab())
+ warning(WARN_SYNTAX, "expected end of line or an auto-increment"
+ " argument in register definition request; got %1",
+ tok.description());
}
skip_line();
}
This change was proposed on the mailing list last April.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2023-04/msg00307.html
I observe (I had forgotten) that Doug McIlroy proposed making this "a
hard error", which might have meant a mere promotion of the diagnostic
severity, or might have meant aborting interpretation of the numeric
expression (so the meaning of "3mn+2i" _would_ change).
"[N]ot necessarily one that stops groff in its tracks" means, I assume,
that he didn't advise making it a _fatal_ error.
In the end I decided on a warning _because_ I didn't have to change the
control flow of the numeric expression interpreter (with respect to
_parsing_, obviously I did split a conditional) to get the diagnostic
that was suggested. So what this does is warn the user that they're
saying nothing when they might think they're saying something.
Similarly:
commit 1222385e42032dea31fb1eb893653de5ae8cae05
Author: G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jan 17 20:03:54 2025 -0600
[troff]: More requests warn of missing arguments.
Make more requests that take mandatory arguments--specifically `char`,
`fchar`, and `schar`--throw warning diagnostics in category "missing"
when they aren't given any.
* src/roff/troff/input.cpp (define_character_request)
(define_fallback_character_request)
(define_special_character_request): Do it.
> Or am I reading too much into this patch?
Possibly.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66700>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
