Follow-up Comment #2, bug #45502 (project groff):
Does strictly enforcing the V7 Unix troff syntax offer any compatibility
benefit? That is, are there correctly formed historical constructions that
would be parsed incorrectly under groff as a result of this change?
I ask because changing groff's behavior 30 years on (assuming this behavior
dates to groff 1.0) also poses back-compatibility concerns for those authors
(perhaps unwittingly) taking advantage of this undocumented syntactical
relaxation.
Maybe the right solution is to document this as a GNU extension to traditional
troff syntax. As long as it breaks no valid historical documents, it seems a
pretty clear-cut case of DWIM.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?45502>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
