Follow-up Comment #16, bug #64360 (project groff):
[comment #15 comment #15:]
> I strongly object to your characterization of this as a
> proposed API change. It is not. It honors the letter and
> spirit of CSTR #54,
If the layout of groff's output language hasn't changed in 30+ years, there's
arguably a de facto API separate from the published one. For that matter,
groff didn't publish CSTR #54 and deviates from it in various ways. So
whether it is or isn't an API change may depend on which angle you're looking
at it from.
> and groff's other output drivers are not tripped up by the change,
A good dose of Postel's law is often advisable.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64360>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
