Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66700 (group groff): Thanks for the quick diagnosis!
[comment #1 comment #1:]
> This may have been idiomatic, or nearly so, in AT&T troff.
The new diagnostic is only a warning, and is off by default, and affects no
output. So it's not breaking any compatibility. But if it's warning about
something that _was_ once idiomatic, I wonder if it should get a NEWS item
anyway, even though generally new diagnostics shouldn't be NEWSworthy.
> But I assume GNU troff's `;` operator exists for a good reason,
This operator being a GNU extension, the proposed patch makes our -me package
non-backwards-compatible. But maybe it already was? I thought I remembered a
goal of keeping historical macro packages written in only AT&T syntax. But
there may already be exceptions to that.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66700>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
