> So it all works as is now you've written the code, you're just pointing > out that grog's current behaviour meant you had to take this route?
I was basically explaining how this could be an issue instead of a minor annoyance. In my particular case, I need to support multiple Groff versions, so fixing this upstream won't make the issue go away. :-) On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 03:08, Ralph Corderoy <ra...@inputplus.co.uk> wrote: > Hi John, > > > > > > https://github.com/Alhadis/Roff.js/blob/8678ef365626e049c58b4ad65d62383fe7db49b9/lib/adapters/troff/groff.mjs#L575 > > > > > > What's the problem with grog suggesting something that isn't > > > installed? > > > > Rendering needs to succeed even if the necessary preprocessors aren't > > installed; the adapter makes sure to call Groff without options it > > knows are unsupported. > > Right, in either the grog case, or the no-grog-installed case. > > > This is a setting where an incorrect rendering is more tolerable than > > *no* rendering whatsoever; hence the song-and-dance routine. > > Yes. > > So it all works as is now you've written the code, you're just pointing > out that grog's current behaviour meant you had to take this route? > > -- > Cheers, Ralph. > >
