Follow-up Comment #11, bug #64360 (project groff):
[comment #10 comment #10:] > Yes, I have seen multiple "w", but never one followed by a space. I've never seen multiple 'w' commands in sequence without some other command in between. I can't remember if I've seen 'w' followed by a space. > I thought commands and arguments with a known fixed length (such as the w command) aren't separated by syntactical space. Well, that was true until now. As far as I know that's never been true, but it seems that AT&T troff didn't often avail itself of optional white space. CSTR #97 suggests that there was some pressure to make the formatter's output as low in byte count as possible. > Previously, before you added /n, Well, it's not exactly live code where anyone can get to it but me. > a w is always followed by another command, which is what my code expects. It certainly _should_ always be followed by another command, even if it's "x trailer". The question is whether it can be followed by white space, and CSTR #54 seems unequivocal about that. You can see an example of what I _think_ is a Kernighan parser at the following. https://github.com/n-t-roff/DWB3.3/blob/master/postscript/dpost/dpost.c#L723 > I can't see a reason for the change, it is actually helpful, when looking at troff output, to quickly distinguish word spaces whnnn and kerning hnnn. Can you show me a concrete example of what you mean? > I have not seen your discussion on changing this on the list, I did see your suggestion about adding a word mark to \~ but not changing the syntax of the file produced by troff. It's an older ticket, from December. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63544 _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64360> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/