At 2023-04-30T02:42:33-0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > On 4/27/23, Douglas McIlroy <douglas.mcil...@dartmouth.edu> wrote: > > "Semantic newline" warnings are relatively innocuous. The occasional > > pitch on this mailing list for paragraph awareness is far less so. > > If you're referring here to changing groff's line-by-line processing > to paragraph-at-once processing (via Knuth-Plass or similar > algorithm), that's a central part of groff's 2014 mission statement > (http://www.gnu.org/software/groff/groff-mission-statement.html, where > it's billed as an "exciting challenge") and had widespread support > when the mission statement was being assembled some 10 years ago.
Maybe we should revisit/amend/re-ratify the mission statement since it's been about 10 years. I've seen at least one prominent subscriber to this list express reservations about whether Knuth-Plass is so great after all. (I don't have a citation handy. It's somewhere in the list archives in the past 5 years.) I don't think that view was necessarily an expression of sour grapes. If I remember correctly, the observation was that K-P can cause slightly irregular line lengths from one paragraph to the next. Myself, I wonder if K-P couldn't be implemented above the formatter itself, using a diversion. We could then put the implementation in an auxiliary macro package. Since I have plans to attack our facilities for diversion re-processing anyway, it might be a good time to identify any feature gaps we have that would make doing K-P this way more difficult than it needs to be. I don't have any serious concerns with the Mission Statement as it stands, though I don't interpret it as some people do. It says: "Future work on manpages will entail improving the semantic clarity of the man(7) macros, decoupling them as much as possible from low-level presentational requests. The aim will be to ease conversion of manpages to markup languages that do not rely on groff for display and printing, e.g. XML, while preserving the full presentational richness of manpages processed with groff." It goes on to say: "Concurrent with work on man(7), mdoc(7) will be actively supported and its use promoted." ...which some people seem to interpret as "mdoc(7) will be promoted to the detriment of man(7), which we deprecate". But that interpretation is absurd given the immediately preceding paragraph. Lord, save us from mdoc(7) partisans. Probably my biggest grievance with our Mission Statement is that it says "manpages" instead of "man pages". ;-) Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
