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

[M Bianchi]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:10:04PM +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
> Bob Diertens <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > This was already there in the "PWB/MM Programmer's Workbench Memorandom
> > Macros", D.W. Smith and J.R. Mashey, October 1977.
> >
> > So there only a bug in the groff_mm manual page.
> >
> > The same document also mentions the names used by PWB/MM in the chapter
> > "Extending and Modifying the Macros":
> >
> > registers:   Aa (most common, accessible to users)
> >              An (common, accessible to user)
> >              A (accessible, set on command line)
> >              :x (mostly internal, rarely accessiblem usually dedicated)
> >              ;x (internal, dynamic, temporaries)
> >
> > Seen this, I suggest not to provide aliases for registers :x.
> > This only clutters up the name-space for registers.
>       :
> However, if you consider the text authoritative, then
> a document that uses :p with the intent of setting a
> footnote number is just as non-conforming as a document
> that expects that it can use :p for its own purposes.
> Consequently, it does not matter whether groff_mm uses
> :p or not.

I think the "right" answer it to document what the current macro package does,
and either expose and _document_ some of the internal regesiters and strings
as being useful or extend and _document_ the package with macros that provide
useful functionality.

I intend to do the document side.  My prejudice is not to document internal
registers but instead to add functionality.  Something like:

        .Footnote_option reset_number 0
        .List_option     reset_number 0
        .Header_option   level 2         reset_number 0

I see this as less likely to cause name-space collision and self documenting
in the code.

        "What is this  .nr ft*nr 0  for?"

Reactions?

-- 
 Mike Bianchi