[bug #62826] [PATCH] [tmac] options "-mandoc" and '-C' are not compatible

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #62826 (group groff): I do not have a case example as I use stripping (expanded 'tmac/strip.sed') to avoid the repeated removal of non-essential characters. Example is file 'tmac/doc.tmac'. Size 162336 mar 27 12:39 tmac/doc.tmac Stripped size 90253 maí 5 17

[bug #65692] tmac/mdoc.tmac: fix minor differences from the "mandoc" software

URL: Summary: tmac/mdoc.tmac: fix minor differences from the "mandoc" software Group: GNU roff Submitter: bjarniig Submitted: Sun 05 May 2024 10:59:36 PM UTC Category: Macro p

[bug #62826] [tmac] clearly comment bug #44714 workaround in andoc.tmac

Update of bug #62826 (group groff): Severity: 3 - Normal => 2 - Minor Status: Need Info => None Summary: [PATCH] [tmac] options "-mandoc" and '-C' are not compatible => [tmac] clearly com

[bug #44714] compatibility mode: .do request and macro expansion via \* collide

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #44714 (group groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > Probably until this is fixed (which may be a while if it proves as > intractable as Werner predicts), the andoc.tmac comment should cite > this ticket rather than vaguely referring to "a bug in GNU troff." This is now cove

[bug #64155] [troff] specifying -fZD on command line generates warnings

Follow-up Comment #36, bug #64155 (group groff): Sigh. Wrote a long comment. Form was stale. Document Expired. Text lost. ___ Reply to this item at: ___

[bug #64155] [troff] specifying -fZD on command line generates warnings

Follow-up Comment #37, bug #64155 (group groff): [comment #34 comment #34:] > Maybe it is time for a proper string equality operator in our > conditional expressions. While that would be a useful addition to the language, equivalent functionality can be achieved in user space, in a way back compa

[bug #64155] [troff] specifying -fZD on command line generates warnings

Follow-up Comment #38, bug #64155 (group groff): [https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?111059 Frustration submitted.] ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Mes

[bug #59442] [PATCH] groff.cpp: move soelim before preconv in constructed pipeline

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #59442 (group groff): It sounds like a decision is needed on which is the cart and which the horse. Should this bug take priority -- as comment #1 points out, "The whole point of soelim is to get preprocessors to run on `.so`ed files" -- and then bug #65108 has to figur