> Hi Sebastian, > > I'm sorry it's taken a while to follow up with you. No worries. It's a small and (somewhat) insignificant patch. I figured someone would see it eventually, and even if they didn't, hopefully anyone running into the issue I was facing would be able to find my post when Google-ing (the error message generated by the parser when the input uses two neutral quotes/apostrophes is of no help).
What I won't forgive is misspelling my name ;) /j. > Obviously the `oq` and `cq` special characters aren't correct, ... I actually wasn't sure if the use of `\[ga]` was correct here because there are a lot of different groff characters that seem similar/fitting. In the end, I just consulted groff_char(7) (a very common activity for me) and chose the most "obvious" option. Of course I previewed the patch with man(1) and the output showed the right characters that one needs to use with pic(1), so I felt it was close enough and if there was a more fitting character someone would say something. > I find the decision odd, but I'm probably decades late to > weigh in on it. I'm guessing they thought it would feel most natural to continue using the same quoting style one would use when authoring a *roff document. Personally, I think it would make more sense to just use parenthesis around the expression, but most *roff preprocessors try to make their syntax as close to English as possible (a product of their time?), so quotation is the best fit for that. > Thanks for the report and the patch! No problem. Thanks for your detailed reply and all the work you do maintaining. S
