> Wrapping a diversion inside a character definition is indeed a
> novel thing to do. At first blush, I admire the creativity.
> At second blush, the prescriptivist and black-gloved input
> validator in me recoils. ("Why isn't this banned?" he roars.)
> My third reaction is as a system designer; we should allow
> such feature composition unless we have a _good_ reason not to.
Macro processing is all about string expansion, and in troff,
macros and diversions (and character definitions in groff)
are also just special forms of strings, so there is no
a priori reason this should not work.
However, I suspect there might be difficulties in some
circumstances (e.g., when used as argument in a macro call)
if the expanded material contains newlines.
