Follow-up Comment #14, bug#64285 (group groff):
[comment #12 comment #12:]
> If you think fixing a crazy (but well known and documented) "feature"
> is more important than maintaining 30 years of groff compatibility,
I wrote a response to this point as well, then realized I was only repeating
my remarks of comment #4--except that where in that comment I had to say
"there's yet to be a released groff with the \s change, so we don't yet know
what gnashing of teeth it might engender," we now know that in the six months
that 1.23 has been out, people have complained about various changes debuting
in it, but not this one (at least not where I've seen it, though of course I
don't follow every forum where such complaints might be voiced).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64285>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
