Re: Wanted: testers for heavily revised grog(1)

[Dave Kemper]

On 7/1/21, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have previously characterized Dave Kemper as having a fluttering
> cape--he has flown to the rescue again already!

Yeah, I don't know about that -- I found that from reading the man
page, not running the code.

And honestly, my groff command lines are simple and fairly invariant,
so I don't really have anything I can test much of grog's
functionality on.  I'm not much use for testing the program itself,
I'm afraid.

I do have one other observation about the man page, though.  Listing
all the options grog *does* infer will tell the knowledgeable groff
user which ones it doesn't.  But since grog is aimed at inexpert
users, is it reasonable to list at least some of the options a groff
file could plausibly need that grog won't output?  For instance, in
modern times a commonly needed preprocessor is probably preconv, but
grog does not know about groff's -D, -k, or -K options.