Hi Joerg, At 2024-10-13T11:03:52+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > but I really believe the line should never have been deleted in the > first place (I think the working hypothesis should better be "even if > I do not see why it is there and even if it seems superfluous to me, > it is there for a reason"
I think a better hypothesis is "have good automated test coverage", so that you can delete stale code and otherwise refactor. Our test coverage may have been inadequate here; I'll see what I can do about it. > (and, of course, I personally believe the same is true for the .IX > removal ;)). If you've read my earlier messages about this, then maybe you can answer some questions. What is `IX`'s interface on the following ms implementations? By "interface", I mean not only "what arugments does the macro accept?", but "what output or result can the macro user rely upon?". 1. DWB 3.3 2. Solaris 10 3. Solaris 11 4. groff 1.22.4 Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
