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

[Gunnar Ritter]

M Bianchi <address@hidden> wrote:

> I think the "right" answer it to document what the current macro package does

You seem to refer to your variant, since there are multiple
"current" ones in existence (at least yours, Sun's, and mine).

By the way, does the groff_mm documentation describe which
registers it reserves for internal use?

> 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?

As I said, it depends on what you want to achieve with -mm.
If you want to format existing documents, it is clearly the
wrong way. It looks like the right way you want a largely
two-character-request macro package with some minor (and
non-portable) self-documenting extensions. If you find that
useful, you should go ahead.

        Gunnar