Re: [PATCH] new .cp register; was: Possible regression with `groff -C`

2020-04-14 Thread Ingo Schwarze
Hi, G. Branden Robinson wrote on Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 12:24:10AM +1000: > Recall that thanks to Solaris we have to do this dance in all of our man > pages if we want to use _any_ non-compatibility mode features. That's a non-issue. Nobody should use any fancy features in any manual page in the

Re: [PATCH] new .cp register; was: Possible regression with `groff -C`

2020-04-14 Thread G. Branden Robinson
At 2020-04-14T20:52:26+1000, John Gardner wrote: > Uh, I think the -C switch might be broken... > > λ GNU-Groff (master): printf '\\n(.C\n' | ./test-groff -Tutf8 | head -n1 > 0 > λ GNU-Groff (master): printf '\\n(.C\n' | ./test-groff -C -Tutf8 | head -n1 > 0 Not exactly. -C is not broken; some o

Re: [PATCH] new .cp register; was: Possible regression with `groff -C`

2020-04-14 Thread John Gardner
Uh, I think the -C switch might be broken... λ GNU-Groff (master): printf '\\n(.C\n' | ./test-groff -Tutf8 | head -n1 0 λ GNU-Groff (master): printf '\\n(.C\n' | ./test-groff -C -Tutf8 | head -n1 0 As for the `.cp` register... I guess it's a necessary compromise. On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 11:46, G

[PATCH] new .cp register; was: Possible regression with `groff -C`

2020-04-13 Thread G. Branden Robinson
Hi, John! First, let me address your lingering point. At 2020-04-12T13:34:04+1000, John Gardner wrote: > Wouldn't it be simpler to inline the contents of unicode.tmac? Only > two other macro packages reference it, and the file is arguably short > enough not to violate any DRY principles: > > λ G