[Groff] changing .em behaviour?

[Werner LEMBERG]

Folks,


Joachim told me that in the original documentation of the AT&T troff
the addition

  ...but all processing ceases at the next page eject

in the description of the `em' request is missing.  He thus suspects
that this bug has been raised to be a feature; instead of fixing it
they just documented it.

What do you think about enabling this bizarre behaviour of `em' only
in compatibility mode?  As already mentioned, I can't think of any
useful application.  This would save us from introducing the proposed
`em1' request.


    Werner