Re: [Groff] underlining

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Tadziu,

> Actually, why not?  I'd like to argue that request names carry with
> them an "implied contract" as to their function, and "ul" stands for
> underline, so that's what it should be used for.

Is it really worth the hassle of having .ul mean three things instead of
just two?  Also, it seems we might be looking at something unlike .ul's
behaviour in nroff, e.g. double underline, strikethrough, descenders, so
it's probably easier to have a clean sheet.

Cheers, Ralph.