Re: translating defined glyphs: docs vs reality

[Tadziu Hoffmann]

> .char \[red-c] \m[red]c\m[]
> .char \[slashed-o] \[/o]
> red-c is \[red-c]; slashed-o is \[slashed-o]
> .br
> .tr c\[red-c]o\[slashed-o]
> bock
> 
> Of these two new glyphs defined with .char, .tr only
> recognizes \[slashed-o].  The other generates the warning
> "7: warning: can't find special character `red-c'" (even
> though groff found it just fine when calling it directly
> via that name).

It may be because you're defining c in terms of itself,
so you get a (non-terminating) recursive mapping.
With another character it works:

  .tr k\[red-c]o\[slashed-o]
  bock

It also works if you define "red-c" not in terms of "c",
but the character encoding number:

  .char \[red-c] \m[red]\N'99'\m[]
  bock