Re: Groff documentation, 5.1.7 Requests and Macros -- not a correction, just a suggested stylistic change

[ropers]

> On 3/6/24, ropers <ropers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> -In fact, the ending marker is itself the name of a macro to be
>> -called, or a request to be invoked, if it is defined at the time its
>> -control line is read.
>> +In fact, the ending marker can itself be the name of another macro to be
>> +called, or a request to be invoked, provided this is already defined by
>> the
>> +time the control line containing the ending marker is read.
>
On 07/03/2024, Dave Kemper <saint.snit@gmail.com> wrote:
> One semantic difference between the two versions is that replacing "a
> macro" with "another macro" implies that the current macro cannot also
> be the end macro.  But groff allows this.
>
> .de repeat repeat
> .  tm I repeat myself.
> .repeat
> .
> .repeat
>
> (Bonus points if you can guess without running the code whether this
> puts "I repeat myself" on stderr twice or endlessly.  (I couldn't.))

1. I withdraw the "nother", no bother.
2. I award myself no points, and may the dot have mercy on me, sole.
(Read: The empty request confused me, so I guessed wrong.)