Update of bug #64005 (project groff): Status: Confirmed => In Progress
_______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #3: [comment #2 comment #2:] > [comment #0 original submission:] > > An only slightly less simple remedy might be to wrap the `bp` > > request, forcing no-space on, invoking the "real" `bp`, and then > > restoring no-space mode (if it was enabled). > > This would also cause .bp to start a new page even if the user has explicitly invoked .ns, correct? That would presumably diverge from historical groff behavior, and possibly that of other roffs. Yes. But I'm not sure why you'd invoke `ns` and then immediately invoke `bp`. There are easier ways to do nothing. Presumably the situation of interest is one where the document author invokes `ns`, interesting things happen, and then they invoke `bp`. I don't think `ns` and `rs` are what other macro packages (like me(7)) term "safe requests". The _only_ formatter requests that Lesk calls out in the Version 7 Unix ms manual are `bp`, `br`, `sp`, and `na`. He doesn't take as strong a line as Allman did though, prefacing the foregoing with > Among the useful commands from the basic formatting programs > are the following. They all work with both typesetter and > computer terminal output: He otherwise does not address the issue. Given this, I'm tempted to regard only those 4 foregoing requests as explicitly "blessed" by the package. Maybe I should add something to our doc/ms.ms about this. The ms package uses `rs` and `ns` internally, and not lightly. Even its earliest available form, from Version 6 Unix, has several occurrences. $ grep -rw -C1 '[nr]s' HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/ HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.de TX HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.rs HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.if t .sp .5i -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.ft R HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.rs HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.ce 1000 -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.di WB HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.rs HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.ce 1 -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.sp 6 HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.ns HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.if \\n(TV .TX -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.ll \\n(LLu HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.rs HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.sp 6 HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.ns HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.if \\n(TV .TX -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.if t .sp 0.5 HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.ns HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.. -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.nr MF 0 HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.ns HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.os -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.nr RO \\n(L2*8/7 HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.ns HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.. -- HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.nr x 0 1 HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s:.ns HISTORY-MS/1975-05-v6/tmac.s-.. (As an aside, check that out, man--classical ms is name space clobberific! It doesn't seem Lesk expected much use of `de`, `ds`, or `nr`, either.) I want to say that if you use any other requests and your document breaks, you get to keep both pieces, but that is doubtless too harsh. It's always okay to use `ab` and `tm`, for instance--I don't want to warn people off of tools that are useful for troubleshooting! In any event, for the immediate issue, I think Lesk's endorsement of `bp` can decide the issue. He clearly envisioned it being employed by document authors. `ns` does not enjoy such an endorsement. Given the choice between breaking documents' use of `bp` and `ns`, the answer seems clear. What do you think? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64005> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/