[retitling Subject: since this message is almost exclusively about
terminology]
Hi Anton,
At 2024-06-25T19:44:51+0300, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> G. Branden Robinson, just quick commentincle on this:
>
> > So if "adjustment" is, as I claim, "the widening of the spaces
> > between words until glyphs
G. Branden Robinson, just quick commentincle on this:
> So if "adjustment" is, as I claim, "the widening of
> the spaces between words until glyphs abut both the
> left and right margins", well, that's clearly not hap-
> pening here.
No, it is not. What you describe is "both" adjustment,
Hi Bjarni,
I urge you to read my earlier messages in this thread carefully. They
address every point you're making.
At 2024-06-25T00:05:40+, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
> The bug is shown in the example by
>
> .ad l
> mno pqr\p
> .na
> stu vwx\p
> .ad
> yza bcd\p
>
> Result is (links,
The bug is shown in the example by
.ad l
mno pqr\p
.na
stu vwx\p
.ad
yza bcd\p
Result is (links, no adjustment, unchanged=previous)
yza bcd
instead of
yza bcd
With my patch it is
yza bcd
with other parts unchanged from upstream.
All the different implementations (also "plan9
[self-follow-up]
At 2024-06-23T19:13:27-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Decisions still to be made:
[...]
> 3. Whether to alter the behavior of the `ad` request, as the attached
> patch contemplates. Doing so accommodates man page authors' DWIM
> intentions, at some risk to altering t
(was: Documenting a set of functions with -man)
At 2024-06-23T23:03:50+, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
> There are two issues here,
>
> 1) wrong use of the adjustment requests
I agree. But I also think the traditional *roff behavior here is badly
counterintuitive.
Reviewing the language of
