Re: [Groff] pic: No white space allowed between . and PS?

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Carsten Kunze <address@hidden> wrote:
 |Yes.  But generally it can be expected that spaces between \
 |. and a macro name doesn't matter.

I agree with you here.

 |

 |I disagree with the last part of the sentence.  For you as \
 |an expert the above is true.  For the non-expert user the \
 |opposite may be true--there is no reason that they *do not* behave the same.

Absolutely.  Users should feel free, it is hard and cryptic enough
even without such unsucked corners.

 |If someone says that for traditional reasons it *must not* \
 |be implemented--ok.  But else--I think for consistency it \
 |could be allowd some day to insert spaces here.

S-roff will do that; now the comfort is on my side, you would have
to change four roffs instead :)

--steffen
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [Groff] pic: No white space allowed between . and PS?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:36:41 +0100 (CET)
>
>
>
>
> Tadziu Hoffmann <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Pic(1) says:
> > 
> >   Each picture starts with a line beginning with .PS and
> >   ends with a line beginning with .PE.  Anything outside
> >   of .PS and .PE is passed through without change.
>
> Yes.  But generally it can be expected that spaces between . and a macro name 
> doesn't matter.
>
> > There's no mention of spaces between the dot and PS/PE being
> > allowed.
>
> This may be mentioned elsewhere for requests and macros in general.
>
> >  The troff code which reads and interprets lines is
> > entirely different from the pic code that scans for .PS and
> > .PE, so there is no reason to assume they behave the same.
>
> I disagree with the last part of the sentence.  For you as an expert the above 
> is true.  For the non-expert user the opposite may be true--there is no reason 
> that they *do not* behave the same.
>
> > That gtroff allows those spaces is an extension to the original
> > troff spec, and in gpic it was simply not implemented to date.
>
> Maybe I get you wrong, but spaces between . and macronames are possible in any 
> *roff.  (I don't know if it is written in the spec...)
>
> If someone says that for traditional reasons it *must not* be implemented--ok.  
> But else--I think for consistency it could be allowd some day to insert spaces 
> here.
>
> Carsten
>
>
> --- End Message ---