Re: [Groff] No problem in \L request...

[carsten . kunze]

> Hmmm, actually I don't know.  I guess a long time ago I just
> noticed the similarity and simply attributed it to being the
> result of a corresponding similar implementation.

It is likely that the implementation is correct.  IMHO it would be better if 
there had been a note in the documentation (also already in CSTR54).  At least 
this behaviour is not clear to me from reading the specification alone.

I did notice it because AT&T nroff differs from ditroff and groff regarding \L 
(also regarding \v is I checked right now).  But when \v behaves wrong in AT&T 
nroff (motion is not limited to a line) it is likely that also \L has the same 
bug and that ditroff and groff are correct.