Follow-up Comment #2, bug #63587 (project groff):
I have to update my enthusiasm level from "I like this" to "I'm OK with this,"
because I just discovered there _is_ a way to determine INT_MAX from within
the roff language. Branden already knew this, having rewritten the relevant
info-manual sentence in 2020: "Within a diversion, in the absence of a
diversion trap, [the .t register] is the largest representable integer in
basic units."
Sure enough:
.di dummy
.nr int_max \n[.t]
.di
.tm int_max is \n[int_max]
spits out "int_max is 2147483646" on stderr.
(It's intriguingly off by one:
$ groff
.nr big1 2147483646
.nr big2 2147483647
.nr big3 2147483648
troff: <standard input>:3: numeric overflow
but close enough for the practical uses for it Branden lists in points 1-3
(and maybe 4, but I confess I don't grok what distinguishes 4 from 3) in his
initial report.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63587>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
