On 2/6/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Fair! I forgot about this. Before posting, I scanned down the request
> list in groff(7) to protect myself from embarrassment--uselessly.
The advantage of my brain holding far fewer groff requests than yours
is that it can allocate space for more detail a
At 2024-02-05T13:11:04-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 2/5/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > As far as I know, groff has never extended AT&T troff syntax in _this_
> > respect.
> >
> > The argument count to requests (unlike macros) is seemingly sacrosanct.
>
> Groff extended the .ss request by add
On 2/5/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> As far as I know, groff has never extended AT&T troff syntax in _this_
> respect.
>
> The argument count to requests (unlike macros) is seemingly sacrosanct.
Groff extended the .ss request by adding an optional second parameter
where AT&T's took only one.
At 2024-01-23T22:13:26-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 1/23/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > At 2024-01-23T20:52:34-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> >> However, .bp arguably shouldn't have been affected by the change,
> >> since it probably wasn't subject to the same historical ambiguity.
> >
> > I agre
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:10:00 -0500,
Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 1/23/24, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> > I have a groff -ms source file
> [...]
> > When I groff it with version 1.23.0 the page breaks
> > corresponding to the explicit .bp requests are missing.
>
> This item in the (very lengthy) NEWS file fo
On 1/23/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2024-01-23T20:52:34-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
>> However, .bp arguably shouldn't have been affected by the change,
>> since it probably wasn't subject to the same historical ambiguity.
>
> I agree, and I wasn't happy about it.
I wonder if the proper way
Hi Dave,
At 2024-01-23T20:52:34-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> However, .bp arguably shouldn't have been affected by the change,
> since it probably wasn't subject to the same historical ambiguity.
I agree, and I wasn't happy about it.
> (I bet implementing that distinction would require some macro
At 2024-01-24T02:26:44+, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
> This is a regression (not backward compatible)
It's a _change_. That's why it's documented in the ChangeLog file.
It is a change that can have a significant measurable effect on user
documents. That's why it's documented in the NEWS f
On 1/23/24, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
> Macros for historical documents should be put into a separate
> directory (e.g., tmac/historical), which can then be searched
> with the '-M ' option.
As the NEWS item (posted in full a couple hours ago in this thread)
mentions, this change *increases*
This is a regression (not backward compatible) caused by
Branden acting as a developer (not as a maintainer).
This is the second case of this kind of a bug (bug #65077),
see for example "CSTR #54", chapter 5, about the 'ns' request or
the "groff.info" (info groff) and groff(7) (incomplete).
At 2024-01-23T19:10:00-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 1/23/24, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> > I have a groff -ms source file
> [...]
> > When I groff it with version 1.23.0 the page breaks
> > corresponding to the explicit .bp requests are missing.
>
> This item in the (very lengthy) NEWS file for 1.23 p
On 1/23/24, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> I have a groff -ms source file
[...]
> When I groff it with version 1.23.0 the page breaks
> corresponding to the explicit .bp requests are missing.
This item in the (very lengthy) NEWS file for 1.23 probably explains
the change you're seeing:
The s (ms) macro
12 matches
Mail list logo
