Follow-up Comment #4, bug #59434 (group groff):
I guess we should get our terminology straight.
For the infamous [comment #0 original submission] sample code, if COND1 is
false, groff emits the .el warning. Do you consider this warning spurious?
Based on everything written on this so far, I'm inclined to say no: in the
COND1=false case, groff does not see the .ie request, so when it hits the .el,
that .el is, in fact, unmatched; ergo, the warning is of an actual condition
(i.e., not a false positive); ergo, not spurious.
Have we diverged in our ideas of spuriousness, or are we together so far?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59434>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
