Re: Warn on semantic newlines

On 4/27/23, Douglas McIlroy wrote: > "Semantic newline" warnings are relatively innocuous. The occasional > pitch on this mailing list for paragraph awareness is far less so. If you're referring here to changing groff's line-by-line processing to paragraph-at-once processing (via Knuth-Plass or s

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:49:07AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > [CC -= Ingo, as requested] > > Hi Bjarni, > > On 4/27/23 03:40, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote: > > > > "groff" is not the right tool for such things, but "grep" is. > > It could work for an initial implementation. It would onl

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

[I just realized groff@ was removed; adding back] Hi Ingo, On 4/27/23 15:34, Ingo Schwarze wrote: [...] > That's only supported for mdoc(7) so far, not for man(7): [...] > The reason is that the mandoc(1) message system strives for low noise, Ahhh, now I remember we already talked about this

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

I oppose loading groff down with AI. Recall the angst of \s, where \s30 summoned huge type and \s40 tiny. I have enough battles with Word and its imitators trying to outguess me*, or with Tex throwing a tantrum about paragraphs that it deems unaesthetic. I am much happier with groff, which in gen

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

[CC -= Ingo, as requested] Hi Bjarni, On 4/27/23 03:40, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote: > > "groff" is not the right tool for such things, but "grep" is. It could work for an initial implementation. It would only have some false positives for things like defining your own macros at the top of a

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:52:30AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi, Ingo and Branden! > > As far as I know, there's currently no tool that warns on "foo. bar" in > filled test. Not `mandoc -Tlint`, and not `groff -ww`, and not `groff > -rCHECKSTYLE=999`. I know that CHECKSTYLE is not design

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Alexandro, Alejandro Colomar wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 05:47:40PM +0200: [ ... warning about a comma in the middle of an input line ] > Yeah, just have this floating around in your mind, and if you find a > solution some day that's great; otherwise, it looks like an impossible > thing.

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

(I reorganized some parts for convenience in the answers) Hi Ingo, On 6/16/22 21:08, Ingo Schwarze wrote: As far as I know, there's currently no tool that warns on "foo. bar" in filled test. Not `mandoc -Tlint`, That's not entirely accurate. [...] The mandoc(1) program warns if all of th

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Alejandro, Alejandro Colomar wrote on Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:52:30AM +0200: > As far as I know, there's currently no tool that warns on "foo. bar" > in filled test. Not `mandoc -Tlint`, That's not entirely accurate. Instead of the strange example "foo. bar", let's try a more realistic exam

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

> > AI is a bane of formatting. It's getting better. Though I still prefer smart practices and dumb programs, ins

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

AI is a bane of formatting. When Libre Office sees my name, M. Douglas McIlroy, at the beginning of a line, it renders it by default as a paragraph numbered with Roman numeral 1000 (and labels the next paragraph MI). While groff is not so wild, it does have AI foibles in intersentence spacing and i

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Branden, On 6/11/22 14:50, G. Branden Robinson wrote: I've seen stuff like this trip it. .EX \&.de foo \&. ie 1 bar \&. el baz \&.. .EE The indentation after the control characters prompts the complaint. But that is, strictly, correct, because inter-sentence space _is_ applied even whe

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Alex, At 2022-06-10T17:47:40+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 6/10/22 14:16, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > For groff, at least, the fundamental change is straightforward. I > > can made the troff(1) command do it with a 1-line patch. > > > > diff --git a/src/roff/troff/env.cpp b/src/roff/

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Alejandro, > > this diagnostic sprung up in places I expected ... > > and a few places I didn't. ... > > I _will_ commit now to not turning this warning on by default. Sentence > > endings internal to a line are not incorrect roff practice. ... > Is the following correct? "foo. Bar" Yes, if

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

On 6/10/22 14:16, G. Branden Robinson wrote: For groff, at least, the fundamental change is straightforward. I can made the troff(1) command do it with a 1-line patch. diff --git a/src/roff/troff/env.cpp b/src/roff/troff/env.cpp index d6a9e982d..d3f80a205 100644 --- a/src/roff/troff/env.cpp +++

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Alex! At 2022-06-10T11:52:30+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > As far as I know, there's currently no tool that warns on "foo. bar" > in filled test. Not `mandoc -Tlint`, and not `groff -ww`, and not > `groff -rCHECKSTYLE=999`. I know that CHECKSTYLE is not designed in a > way that could catch

Re: Warn on semantic newlines

Hi Alejandro, > The tool could have a secondary warning, not so important, > for "foo, bar". What warning do you think this needs? -- Cheers, Ralph.