Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

[Jon Snader]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:57:06PM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 17:33 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > So I ask the question of the group:
> > > 
> > >       Do we want to implement "backward compatibility" of
> > >   undocumented things like the number register  :p  in
> > >   the groff package?
> > > 
> > > I vote no.
> 
> As do I.
> 

I'm with Gunnar on this: I don't much care (especially since I
don't use -mm).  In general, I am *very* much in favor of
backward compatibility, but as others have pointed out, the
feature was undocumented, so anyone using it is probably prepared
to deal with it's unportability.

> 
> Exactly as you would in any other situation, where you found it
> necessary to exploit an undocumented feature; go ahead anyway, but
> prominently include a comment in the document, to the effect that:
> 
>   .\" This document makes gratuitous use of the undocumented `:p'
>   .\" register, defined by the XYZ implementation of `mm'; it may
>   .\" not be readily portable to other troff implementations.
>   .
>   .\" The equivalent, but also undocumented, feature in groff `mm'
>   .\" is controlled by the `ft*nr' register; thus
>   .
>   .   aln :p ft*nr
>   .
>   .\" should suffice, to allow groff to emulate this undocumented
>   .\" register usage.
> 

If it were me, I'd do exacted as Keith suggests here and fix it
up in the files that are affected.

jcs