[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #66700 (group groff): At 2025-01-23T03:18:12-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > A change to the formatter implemented the diagnostic message. So > either I wrote the syntax validation incorrectly, or a bug in me(7) > has been exposed. I apologize for the lateness of the

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Update of bug #66700 (group groff): Status:None => In Progress Assigned to:None => gbranden ___ Reply to this item at: __

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #66700 (group groff): Attaching proposed patch. (file #56803) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: fix-66700.diff Size: 2KiB

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #66700 (group groff): At 2025-01-23T02:31:18-0500, Dave wrote: > Date: Thu 23 Jan 2025 01:31:12 AM CST By: Dave > The -me .2c macro is throwing a warning that it never (i.e., back to at least > 1.19.2) did before. > > $ echo '.2c 3m' | groff -me -ww -z > $ echo '.2c 3m'

[bug #61302] [tests] non-portable use of echo

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #61302 (group groff): At 2025-01-22T19:15:38-0500, Dave wrote: > Follow-up Comment #9, bug #61302 (group groff): > > [comment #8 comment #8:] >> I see the pnmcrop diagnostics on Mac OS X as well, but they are >> harmless; > > To keep users from thinking something is goin

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #66700 (group groff): [comment #9 comment #9:] > I need more evidence that this truly was an idiom. Fair enough. The number of instances you changed in the attached patch suggest it was at least an Allman idiom, but that's still not solid evidence. > I think you're mi

[bug #66702] Error building on Linux

URL: Summary: Error building on Linux Group: GNU roff Submitter: None Submitted: Thu 23 Jan 2025 07:24:25 PM UTC Category: Core Severity: 3 - Normal

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #66700 (group groff): At 2025-01-23T11:36:05-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Similarly: > > commit 1222385e42032dea31fb1eb893653de5ae8cae05 > Author: G. Branden Robinson > Date: Fri Jan 17 20:03:54 2025 -0600 > > [troff]: More requests warn of missing arguments. > >

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66700 (group groff): Thanks for the quick diagnosis! [comment #1 comment #1:] > This may have been idiomatic, or nearly so, in AT&T troff. The new diagnostic is only a warning, and is off by default, and affects no output. So it's not breaking any compatibility. But

[bug #66702] Error building on Linux

Update of bug #66702 (group groff): Category:Core => General Item Group:None => Build/Installation Status:None => Need Info ___ Foll

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #66700 (group groff): [comment #4 comment #4:] > Does this mean that adding a valid unit specifier to a valid > single character named register is no longer accepted? Or am I > reading too much into this patch? _This_ patch touches only the -me package. You might be won

[bug #61302] [tests] non-portable use of echo

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #61302 (group groff): [comment #10 comment #10:] > My problem is that I'm not sure they're _always_ harmless. In that case, I'll open a new ticket for this--low priority, but to keep it from falling off the radar entirely. _

[bug #66686] \w rejecting delimiter roffs have accepted for decades

Update of bug #66686 (group groff): Status:None => Confirmed Assigned to:None => gbranden ___ Follow-up Comment #3: Found it. 1e53037d5d3f934cf89081436f39f87ff2f2efad

[bug #66675] [troff] valid .char definition starting with `\[u` provokes erroneous error

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66675 (group groff): At 2025-01-16T21:43:06-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > What you link to is some new/refactored code associated with my > titanic struggle to land Unicode-rich PDF bookmarks (and device > extension command arguments generally). > > At the point 'va

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66700 (group groff): At 2025-01-23T08:32:23-0500, Deri James wrote: > Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66700 (group groff): > > Does this mean that adding a valid unit specifier to a valid single > character named register is no longer accepted? It's "accepted", but warned ab

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #66700 (group groff): At 2025-01-23T12:00:27-0500, Dave wrote: > Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66700 (group groff): > > Thanks for the quick diagnosis! My pleasure! I like it when they're easy. > [comment #1 comment #1:] >> This may have been idiomatic, or nearly so, in A

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66700 (group groff): Does this mean that adding a valid unit specifier to a valid single character named register is no longer accepted? Or am I reading too much into this patch? ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #66700] [me] .2c macro with one argument gives unexpected warning

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #66700 (group groff): [comment #5 comment #5:] > At 2025-01-23T08:32:23-0500, Deri James wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66700 (group groff): >> >> Does this mean that adding a valid unit specifier to a valid single >> character named register is no longer accepte