[bug #55124] doc/groff.texi: text about negative .pl values needs clarification

Update of bug #55124 (project groff): Open/Closed:Open => Closed Planned Release:None => 1.23.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #4: commit 6dd07b45478a5

[bug #64238] [docs] Simplify the explanations of "italic corrections"

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #64238 (project groff): > groff(7) diff is terser, and that's deliberate. Sorry, that should say: > groff(7) is terser, and that's deliberate. ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #64238] [docs] Simplify the explanations of "italic corrections"

Update of bug #64238 (project groff): Status: Need Info => Invalid Assigned to:None => gbranden Open/Closed:Open => Closed

[bug #64236] [eqn] "digit" type seems to have a bad name

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #64236 (project groff): This seems likely entangled with bug #64231 and bug #64232. At this point I envision revamping the style (as opposed to the spacing) types. upright (currently "digit") slanted (currently "letter") heavy (currently nonexistent) ___

[bug #64232] [devices] stop assigning `*[a-ik-uw-z]` special characters to italic fonts

Update of bug #64232 (project groff): Summary: stop assigning `*[a-ik-uw-z]` special characters to italic fonts => [devices] stop assigning `*[a-ik-uw-z]` special characters to italic fonts ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #64212] [PATCH] [troff] want string-valued register naming the next trap

Update of bug #64212 (project groff): Summary: [PATCH] give troff a string register naming the next trap => [PATCH] [troff] want string-valued register naming the next trap ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #62264] [troff] string iteration handles escape sequences inconsistently (want `for` request)

Update of bug #62264 (project groff): Summary: string iteration handles escape sequences inconsistently (want `for` request) => [troff] string iteration handles escape sequences inconsistently (want `for` request) ___ Follo

[bug #57506] Suspicious "slant" values in devps/TI, devlbp/HI, devlbp/HBI

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #57506 (project groff): Following up to myself: [comment #6 comment #6:] > Huh, so RTFMing suggests this value might be "erroneous" on > purpose. afmtodit(1) says: To be fair, afmtodit(1) is not the most obvious place to look for this nugget. A user perusing the font