Re: How \c works (was: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents)

At 2024-10-03T03:15:14+0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > we already have a means of input line continuation [...] > > Not in the sense that the input line can be interrupted by > some other processing and then continued. But we do have a > workaround for this situation: append material to a string

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

At 2024-10-02T13:29:28-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > [follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list] One point I forgot to mention... > At 2024-10-02T18:12:06+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > > I was not aware of this change (not following groff development > > closely) and it took me quit

Re: How \c works (was: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents)

> we already have a means of input line continuation [...] Not in the sense that the input line can be interrupted by some other processing and then continued. But we do have a workaround for this situation: append material to a string until the full line has been assembled, and then feed it in

How \c works (was: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents)

Hi Tadziu, At 2024-10-03T02:14:44+0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > . > > I must have been blissfully unaware of this discussion. > > However, I want to caution against the idea that "\c" continues > an *input* line. "\c" is somethi

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

> . I must have been blissfully unaware of this discussion. However, I want to caution against the idea that "\c" continues an *input* line. "\c" is something that concerns the *output*. I.e., foo\c bar is *two* input lines

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

[follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list] Hi Joerg, At 2024-10-02T18:12:06+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > I was not aware of this change (not following groff development > closely) and it took me quite a bit of time today to find the root > course of why some newly compiled old document