Follow-up Comment #4, bug #63587 (project groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > 1. Having to create a diversion just to discover this > implementation limit, which is in no way restricted to > diversion applications, feels lame.
It's definitely hackish, and certainly not obvious to even (some) semi-experienced roff users. A simple, documented interface is certainly _better_; I was just pointing out (perhaps only to myself, or perhaps to a vast silent savannah audience) that it's not impossible, nor even particularly difficult, with existing groff. As an added benefit, the hack is portable, at least to Heirloom (which, as a bonus, actually gets the number right). Also, without knowing what the largest integer is, how does one distinguish between a diversion trap that's very far away from the current position (i.e., a very large value of \n[.t]) and no diversion traps being set (i.e., also a very large value of \n[.t])? This could be item 5 on your use-case list -- though for it to work as such, the off-by-one would have to be redressed. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63587> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/