Hello! Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: |> <standard input>:5: missing `]' |> <standard input>:5: invalid component `a' in composite glyph name | |Well, the parsing for `\[...]' happens before feeding the data to |\A'...', IIRC. | |> Is this a general parser problem, i haven't looked yet.. | |I wouldn't call it a `general parser problem'. Basically, you can't |generate `\[' programmatically, as far as I can see. If you ever get |this warning, it's an error in the input.
Well exactly that was however the initial problem: while testing the manual of the MUA i maintain i got three occurrences of similar errors for \A'' on the result of a ".substring 0 1". A terrible mess is needed to circumvent it: . \" Otherwise we need to find a different way. Use the length, . length mx#sd#n \$2 . \" and furtherly subdivide (necessary, think mdoc(7) manual..) . \" by using the first two letters (not one, ditto). . \" Circumvent the ".substring returns anything" problem via \A'', . \" be aware that groff(1) expands x in \A'x' during parse, so that, . \" e.g, \[, from ".substring 0 1" results in parse errors!! . ds mx#sd#s1 \$2 . ds mx#sd#s2 \$2 . substring mx#sd#s1 0 0 . substring mx#sd#s2 1 1 . ie \A'\*[mx#sd#s1]=\*[mx#sd#s2]' \ Note how you cannot even say \A'\*[a]\*[b]', since the result seems to get expanded on the fly and breaks \A'' if that ends up as "\[". So this is anything but robust and as such defeats the sole purpose of \A''. |> Should i open a bug report? Sorry for cross-posting. --steffen
