Re: [Groff] surprise, surprise

[Werner LEMBERG]

> \p doesn't hide .xx, does it?

In groff it does.  May I ask that someone is testing all escapes which
don't expand to something whether they hide .xx in Unix troff?  Based
on those results I could improve GNU troff's compatibility mode.

> Agreed, the User's Manual is just that.  It is the source which has
> the final word on the behaviour and unless that behaviour can be
> shown to be broken, i.e. Kernighan agrees and doesn't say `No, Joe
> was quite insistent that it should behave like that', then I don't
> think we've the right to re-design troff.

I disagree.  It is my good right as a developer to improve groff.
Compare this to, say, eTeX, an `improved' version of TeX: If you don't
set a particular flag, all extensions are disabled.  Otherwise, you
have a bunch of functions which not only extend TeX but also fix some
flaws in TeX's design.

> Agreed.  I know Kernighan doesn't even have a set of compilable
> source these days but if you like I could approach him for his
> preference;

This is a nice idea.

> groff's compatibility flag seems too limited AFAICS.  It's an `all
> or nothing' approach.  That may be something to consider at the same
> time.

Please give an example for a situation where a finer granulation would
be useful.


    Werner