Hi Alex, At 2023-05-01T00:15:55+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > You could try it (but C++ will only work as long as it resembles C; > and you need to specify the file suffix).
I prefer C to C++ when I have a choice. groff doesn't give me one. ;-) But I'm also accustomed to ctags(1) and cscope(1). I'm not exactly in love with cscope's interface, though. > Bjarni didn't propose adding such a thing to groff. Oh, I know--he strongly declared that it _shouldn't_ be added, and that grep was adequate to tackle the problem. Hence my five-point rebuttal as to why it was not. > He was rather suggesting me to call such a script from my Makefile > where I want the diagnostics. If that works adequately for you, great! For well-behaved man documents, I can't think of a case where any of my five caveats would apply. But I interpreted his words as an objection to the proposed enterprise of Savannah #62776.[1] Maybe I misunderstood, and _I'm_ the Loki in this discussion... :-O > I think that would be fair (assuming I can get a readable thing out of > that script); especially, since I already have other scripts for > similar purposes (like the one suggested by Ralph, for the 80-column > margin, which I find very useful). I'm a big fan of defense in depth. Give my programming language a strong type checker _and_ my machine a tagged memory architecture! :D Regards, Branden [1] https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62776
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
