Follow-up Comment #5, bug #68133 (group groff): What is the drawback to allowing translations that have historically worked in groff, especially those of which have worked even before groff, to continue to work? Or, I guess more accurately, what is gained by banning them?
I get that under the hood, \(+- is a character and \~ is not, but why should
this distinction matter to users just trying to accomplish something? (Bug
#65829 shows one possible use case.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68133>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
