Hi Branden,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 08:58:14PM -0500:
> While I have you, Deri raised a point in Savannah #62251 that I'd like
As you correctly say below, #62551.
> your feedback on. He feels the weight of a TeX installation; other
> people probably will too. It invo
Hi Dave,
> No one, including its inventor, seems fully happy with it, but there
> also hasn't been an alternate proposal that everyone is happy with.
I'd argue if it isn't the proper fix then don't fix it because now
there's just something new to fix with more confusion in the short and
long term
> On Jun 5, 2022, at 1:37 AM, Dave Kemper wrote:
>
> No one, including its inventor, seems fully happy with it, but there
> also hasn't been an alternate proposal that everyone is happy with.
> "Zero-width space" is a nonstarter for its Unicode clash.
Do any of these spark an idea?
- “processor
Hi,
Richard Morse wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 07:46:16AM -0400:
> Do any of these spark an idea?
>
> - “processor instruction”
> - “parser instruction”
> - “special input sequence”
Those are too generic. Practically all escape sequences, and practically
all roff requests in addition to them,
Hi Ingo,
> > - “no-op escape”
>
> But this one, or a variation thereof, might perhaps sever the knot.
This is the only one which seems useful, and continues a theme I went
for in another email.
> It avoids both the very misleading terminology "input break"
Yes, very misleading.
> It is usually
Hi Ingo,
On 6/5/22 14:31, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
- “no-op escape”
But this one, or a variation thereof, might perhaps sever the knot.
It avoids both the very misleading terminology "input break"
and the confusion with the Unicode "ZERO WIDTH SPACE", and it
very accurately describes what this esc
On 6/5/22 17:07, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
How about "non-breaking escape" or "non-printing escape" (not
necessarily in that order of preference)?
Or (I was going to suggest this one, but didn't because it is too long,
but neither of those fully convinces me as much as this one):
"non-printin
Hi Alejandro,
Alejandro Colomar wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 05:07:41PM +0200:
> On 6/5/22 14:31, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Richard Morse write:
>>> - “no-op escape”
>> But this one, or a variation thereof, might perhaps sever the knot.
>> It avoids both the very misleading terminology "input bre
Hi, Ingo!
At 2022-06-05T10:40:43+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> G. Branden Robinson wrote on Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 08:58:14PM -0500:
>
> > While I have you, Deri raised a point in Savannah #62251 that I'd like
> As you correctly say below, #62551.
Argh, yes. Once bug numbers get past four digits m
> diff --git a/INSTALL.REPO b/INSTALL.REPO
...
> +Place the foregoing in a file called "../git-version-gen.patch", apply
> +it, then run the bootstrap script.
> +
> + $ patch -d gnulib-$hash -p0 < ../git-version-gen.patch
>$ ./bootstrap --gnulib-srcdir=gnulib-$hash
Hmm, is this the best way t
On Sunday, 5 June 2022 09:40:43 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Of course, that implies that subsequently, "make dist" will inevitably
> fail, so it won't help much for a serious developer who wants to do
> complete testing of whatever changes they are considering.
The reason to avoid having a dependen
On Sun Jun 5, 2022 at 1:09 PM EDT, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > How about "non-breaking escape"
>
> That's much too broad since most escape sequences are non-breaking.
>
> > or "non-printing escape" (not necessarily in that order of preference)?
>
> That's also too broad for my taste; here are a few mo
Hi Branden,
> > By the way, if submodules are not what you want, i.e. if you always
> > want to use the newest gnulib, I suggest to use the
> > gnulib/top/gitsub.sh script.
>
> I have no principled objection to submodules; the decision to use them
> (well, just this one, for gnulib) was taken bef
[Warning: this message is long.]
Hi Ingo,
At 2022-06-05T19:09:53+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> On a tangent, i just noticed that
>
> .TH TEST 1
> .B foo\c
> bar
>
> prints "bar" in Roman font with mandoc(1), which seems correct to me,
> whereas it appears to print "bar" in bold with groff-
On Sunday, 5 June 2022 02:58:14 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> A big problem with "zero-width space" is that it falsifies the statement
> that adding a newline or multiple (regular) space characters after a
> candidate end-of-sentence character results in inter-sentence spacing
> being added. (U
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 15:53:25 -0500
"G. Branden Robinson" wrote:
> Hi James,
Hi Brandon,
We seem to come at this question from different persepectives. I'm
going to try to bring you over to mine.
> This is like saying that all states in a finite state machine (FSM)
> are equivalent. It's j
On 6/5/22, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> That's also too broad for my taste; here are a few more escape
> sequences that are non-printing and non-breaking unless i'm
> missing something: \{ \} \F \f \H \k \M \m \R \S \s \z
> The difference between \& and the others is that \& is a no-op
> whereas the oth
Hi Branden,
Deri wrote on Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 12:23:19AM +0100:
> On Sunday, 5 June 2022 02:58:14 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
>> A big problem with "zero-width space" is that it falsifies the statement
>> that adding a newline or multiple (regular) space characters after a
>> candidate end-of
I wanted to update this sub-thread with some further information,
particularly if people see places they could pitch in and help.
At 2022-05-26T09:59:59-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2022-05-26T10:29:04-0400, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> > I really need to get the install-font script POSIXfied th
Hi,
DJ Chase wrote on Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 09:57:45PM +:
> On Sun Jun 5, 2022 at 1:09 PM EDT, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Richard Morse wrote:
>>> How about "non-breaking escape"
>> That's much too broad since most escape sequences are non-breaking.
>>> or "non-printing escape" (not necessarily
Hi folks,
Something exciting just escaped from the vaults. I've been hoping to
see this sort of thing for a long time.
Warren Toomey at TUHS has just in the past 24 hours announced the
availability of "Unix 4.0" documentation.
https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/Manuals/Unix_4.0/
This i
21 matches
Mail list logo
