[bug #66006] [grog] Identifies .TS .TH .TE as a -man document

URL: Summary: [grog] Identifies .TS .TH .TE as a -man document Group: GNU roff Submitter: mortenbo Submitted: Sat 20 Jul 2024 08:39:46 AM UTC Category: Utilities

[bug #66006] [grog] Identifies .TS .TH .TE as a -man document

Update of bug #66006 (group groff): Status:None => Confirmed Assigned to:None => gbranden ___ Follow-up Comment #1: Hi Morten, [comment #0

[bug #66006] [grog] Identifies .TS .TH .TE as a -man document

Update of bug #66006 (group groff): Status: Confirmed => In Progress ___ Follow-up Comment #2: Identified simple, dumb logic error. And a further improvement I can make, purifying the `macro_man

Re: [bug #66006] [grog] Identifies .TS .TH .TE as a -man document

On 2024-07-20 G. Branden Robinson wrote: > There are limits to any heuristic tool's inferential power when presented with > very small inputs as we might see with minimal bug reproducers. It's hard to > accurately guess which macro package, if any, the input uses when there hardly > *is* any inpu

[bug #65108] [troff] support construction of general file name request arguments

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #65108 (group groff): Your plan looks solid! I do have one question about two lines at opposite ends of comment #3 that seem to be in opposition. > let's rough out a syntax that would work both for existing uses > of `so` as _soelim_(1) understands it and for formatter

[bug #66006] [grog] Identifies .TS .TH .TE as a -man document

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #66006 (group groff): Morten [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-groff/2024-07/msg00205.html wrote to the bug-groff list]: > [ I couldn't submit this via Savannah's clunky interface, it was rejected .. ] > Just a shot from the hip: In a shell, I believe the followin

[bug #64301] [troff] susceptible to integer overflow

Update of bug #64301 (group groff): Status: Fixed => In Progress Open/Closed: Closed => Open ___ Follow-up Comment #6: I missed a couple of sp

[bug #65108] [troff] support construction of general file name request arguments

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #65108 (group groff): [comment #1 comment #1:] > It would seem that AT&T _troff_ users (and _groff_ users to date) > have been pretty conservative about the file names they pass to > these requests. In my experience, users who work a lot at the command line (which I bet

[bug #65108] [troff] support construction of general file name request arguments

Update of bug #65108 (group groff): Status: Need Info => None Assigned to:barx => None ___ Follow-up Comment #7: One additional comment

[bug #66009] [troff] accepts `|` as operand delimiter, but should not

URL: Summary: [troff] accepts `|` as operand delimiter, but should not Group: GNU roff Submitter: gbranden Submitted: Sat 20 Jul 2024 09:10:05 PM UTC Category: Core