[bug #64360] [gropdf] does not correctly handle white space after 'w' command

[G. Branden Robinson]

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #64360 (project groff):


[comment #10 comment #10:]
> Yes, I have seen multiple "w", but never one followed by a space.

I've never seen multiple 'w' commands in sequence without some other command
in between.

I can't remember if I've seen 'w' followed by a space.
 
> I thought commands and arguments with a known fixed length (such as the w
command) aren't separated by syntactical space. Well, that was true until
now.

As far as I know that's never been true, but it seems that AT&T troff didn't
often avail itself of optional white space.  CSTR #97 suggests that there was
some pressure to make the formatter's output as low in byte count as
possible.
 
> Previously, before you added /n,

Well, it's not exactly live code where anyone can get to it but me.

> a w is always followed by another command, which is what my code expects.

It certainly _should_ always be followed by another command, even if it's "x
trailer".  The question is whether it can be followed by white space, and CSTR
#54 seems unequivocal about that.

You can see an example of what I _think_ is a Kernighan parser at the
following.

https://github.com/n-t-roff/DWB3.3/blob/master/postscript/dpost/dpost.c#L723

> I can't see a reason for the change, it is actually helpful, when looking at
troff output, to quickly distinguish word spaces whnnn and kerning hnnn.

Can you show me a concrete example of what you mean?

> I have not seen your discussion on changing this on the list, I did see your
suggestion about adding a word mark to \~ but not changing the syntax of the
file produced by troff.

It's an older ticket, from December.

https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63544


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64360>

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