On Mon Nov 18, 2024 at 5:30 PM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > [...] > I solicit opinions, from anyone, on the foregoing. > > Here's the behavior of the `device` request after this change. > > $ printf '.device ps:exec A B\\~C\\ D\\0E\\|F\\^G\\h".5m"I\\v".5m"J\n' | > ./build/test-groff -Zww | grep '^x X' > troff:<standard input>:1: warning: ignoring escaped '0' in device extension > command request argument > troff:<standard input>:1: warning: ignoring escaped 'h' in device extension > command request argument > troff:<standard input>:1: warning: ignoring escaped 'v' in device extension > command request argument > x X ps:exec A B\~C\ DE\|F\^G".5m"I".5m"J > > [...] > One might wonder, what did earlier versions of groff do, before I came > along and ruined everything with my unthinking, spasmodic recklessness? > > $ printf 'foobar\n.device ps:exec A B\\~C\\ > D\\0E\\|F\\^G\\h".5m"I\\v".5m"J\n' | ~/groff-1.22.3/bin/groff -Zww | grep '^x > X' > x X ps:exec A B\~C\ D\0E\|F\^G\h".5m"I\v".5m"J > $ printf 'foobar\n.device ps:exec A B\\~C\\ > D\\0E\\|F\\^G\\h".5m"I\\v".5m"J\n' | ~/groff-1.22.4/bin/groff -Zww | grep '^x > X' > x X ps:exec A B\~C\ D\0E\|F\^G\h".5m"I\v".5m"J > $ printf 'foobar\n.device ps:exec A B\\~C\\ > D\\0E\\|F\\^G\\h".5m"I\\v".5m"J\n' | ~/groff-stable/bin/groff -Zww | grep '^x > X' > x X ps:exec A B\~C\ D\0E\|F\^G\h".5m"I\v".5m"J > > So there _is_ a difference...older groffs put out `\0`, `\h`, and `\v` > for an input `\0`, `\h`, and `\v`, and with my pending change, nothing > will be put out for them, but you'll get a warning (if enabled). > [...] > But I can change the output difference back, like this: > > $ printf '.device ps:exec A B\\~C\\ D\\0E\\|F\\^G\\h".5m"I\\v".5m"J\n' | > ./build/test-groff -Zww | grep '^x X' > troff:<standard input>:1: warning: not interpreting escaped '0' in device > extension command request argument > troff:<standard input>:1: warning: not interpreting escaped 'h' in device > extension command request argument > troff:<standard input>:1: warning: not interpreting escaped 'v' in device > extension command request argument > x X ps:exec A B\~C\ D\0E\|F\^G\h".5m"I\v".5m"J > > The alternative diff is simple: > [...] > + warning (WARN_SYNTAX, "not interpreting escaped '%1' in device" > + " extension command request argument", char(c1)); > + else > + warning(WARN_SYNTAX, "not interpreting escaped control character" > + " (code %1) in device extension command request" > + " argument", c1);
Just a small nitpick, but you should probably do s/(warning) /\1/. > Which do you prefer? > [...] I would prefer the former IF it removed their arguments. Since it doesn't and the removal is only partial, I prefer the latter. ~ onf
