[bug #59434] doc/groff.texi: document .if / .ie interaction more clearly

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #59434 (group groff):

I guess we should get our terminology straight.

For the infamous [comment #0 original submission] sample code, if COND1 is
false, groff emits the .el warning.  Do you consider this warning spurious?

Based on everything written on this so far, I'm inclined to say no: in the
COND1=false case, groff does not see the .ie request, so when it hits the .el,
that .el is, in fact, unmatched; ergo, the warning is of an actual condition
(i.e., not a false positive); ergo, not spurious.

Have we diverged in our ideas of spuriousness, or are we together so far?


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59434>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/