Follow-up Comment #18, bug #45502 (group groff):
[comment #17 comment #17:]
> [comment #16 comment #16:]
> > Sometimes I don't evaluate the truth value of a proposition
> > until I've inspected the machine that interprets it. 😅
>
> "Trust, but verify," as they say (though the second step seems t
Update of bug #42675 (group groff):
Summary: \} considered as macro argument => [troff] \}
treated as macro argument
___
Follow-up Comment #8:
Ingo's exhibit, rewritten for AT&T portability, manifests the richest
divergenc
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #59434 (group groff):
I guess we should get our terminology straight.
For the infamous [comment #0 original submission] sample code, if COND1 is
false, groff emits the .el warning. Do you consider this warning spurious?
Based on everything written on this so far, I'm i
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #59434 (group groff):
[comment #4 comment #4:]
> I guess we should get our terminology straight.
>
> For the infamous [comment #0 original submission] sample code, if COND1 is
false, groff emits the .el warning. Do you consider this warning spurious?
Yes.
Since at the
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #42675 (group groff):
[comment #8 comment #8:]
> .if n \{.CA \}
> .if n \{.CA \}
Are those two lines intended to be identical? In Ingo's original, the first
one has no space between the macro call and the following backslash.
__
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #42675 (group groff):
[comment #9 comment #9:]
> [comment #8 comment #8:]
> > .if n \{.CA \}
> > .if n \{.CA \}
>
> Are those two lines intended to be identical? In Ingo's original, the first
one has no space between the macro call and the following backslash.
No. Lo
Follow-up Comment #11, bug #42675 (group groff):
The output of Carsten's example in
http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2014-07/msg00024.html tells us is that sections 1
and 3 call .A with no parameters; section 2 effectively calls it with one
parameter, which is "\}". Thus, the "\}" in section 2 of the
