Follow-up Comment #38, bug #66392 (group groff): [comment #35 comment #35:]
> But what _is_ most reasonable? This raises the thorny question of how
> environments should be initially populated--the very issue you said (comment
> #23) you didn't want to adjudicate before 1.24. Unfortunately, I don't think
> the issues are as separable as you want them to be. I think letting the .hla
> change go into 1.24 without resolving this general environmental problem is
> doing users a disservice. You can spackle over the problem by having the
> various macro packages set defaults for the environments they use, but this
> still doesn't cover users who use custom environments in their own documents
> or personal macro sets.
>
> Hence my saying that deferring bug #66387 until post-1.24 is the path of
> least resistance. (Other than your resistance to it. :)
Seems as if every time I go to say something on this thread, Dave beats me to
it. Yes, Dave, you are absolutely correct. The change needs to be reverted
and the issue resolved after 1.24 is released.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66392>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
