[Groff] Re: gpic bug

[Werner LEMBERG]

From: "William K. Josephson" <address@hidden>
Subject: gpic bug
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:40:42 -0500

> The following is the simplest example I have found of what I believe
> is a bug in gpic 1.16.  According to my 10 Edition manual this should
> be legal input to pic and indeed the version of pic I have from the
> Labs (the offspring of v10 pic for Plan 9) accepts it without
> incident.
>
> [...]
>
> [ box at (1,1) ] with (0,0) at (4,0);

Sorry for answering so late.

According to the grammar in the original pic manual (CSTR 116), the
`with' keyword accepts `corners' only, not positions in general.

Saying

  [ box at (1,1) ] with .sw at (4,0);

works as expected.  Maybe v10 pic for Plan 9 handles `(0,0)' as a
synonym for `.sw'?  This would be an extension of the grammar.  Is
this documented somewhere?

BTW, I believe that CSTR 116's grammar is not correct.  At least GNU
pic wants to have a `dot-corner' (called `optional-corner' in CSTR
116) with no references to labels; additionally, the keywords `right'
and `left' are converted to `.w' and `.e', respectively.

Can some check this with AT&T pic, please?  I'll then update pic.ms
accordingly.


    Werner