Follow-up Comment #11, bug #66675 (group groff): [comment #9 comment #9:] > Not at all. I stand by comment #4; you identified > a flaw in code I wrote, and I aim to fix it.
Sorry, I should have given more context for my comment #8. In particular,
nothing in comment #4 gave me pause. What did, a little bit, was this bit
(that maybe I'm misinterpreting) in comment #5:
> The sneaky and lazy thing that `do_define_character()` does
> is read its first argument in interpretation, not copy, mode.
[...]
> But it has weird consequences.
>
> This bug is one.
...which seems to implicate a longstanding algorithm in this bug rather than a
recent change. Further comments talk about a rewrite of define_character(),
which may or may not be a renamed do_define_character().
Probably I'm failing to understand the link(s) between the "sneaky and lazy"
algorithm of comment #5 and the content of my comment #8. If so, feel free to
tell me so without also feeling compelled to write an essay explaining it. :)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66675>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
