On 7/17/22, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm having trouble thinking of single other example that needs > to operate at the level of the formatter as this one does.
Hmm... does the USER care what level it's operating at? Should the user interface for this low-level diagnostic look basically like that for whatever ends up getting designed for http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62042 ? > It's why I am similarly loath to add a new category (or "level") of > diagnostic message-printing function to groff. We already have > fatal/error/warning/debug (the last a post-1.22.4 addition by me, and > which really shouldn't have any call sites in a released version). Outputwise, this seems like a type of warning, just not one that fits into the existing warning system. But if its output mechanism prepends "warning:" to the message, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. > Right now "style*something" feels like the least bad, but I feel like > "something." is more congruent with existing practice, especially if we > don't think of another plausible formatter-level style warning. Maybe, but it's sort of hard to tell what "we," as an ongoing and open collective, may think of years down the line. > "continuedsentence" doesn't feel intelligible to me because the warning > diagnoses a new sentence suprisingly appearing in the midst of an input > line, not a single sentence that is rambling on. Good point. Luckily, "newsentence" is shorter.
