Update of bug #66016 (group groff):
Status: None => Confirmed
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #1:
[comment #0 original submission:]
> In http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2024-04/msg00007.html Branden quoted CSTR
#54 (1992):
> .hw word
> Specify hyphenation points in words with embedded minus signs.
> Versions of a word with a terminal s are implied; i.e., dig-it
> implies dig-its. This list is examined initially and after each
> suffix stripping.
> He then conjectured, "I expect the second and third sentences don't apply to
GNU troff..., but our documentation says nothing about this. Guess I'll have
to check."
I promptly forgot to do so, of course.
>
> In fact, the second sentence doesn't apply to groff (but does to Heirloom
troff), as illustrated by using .hw to assign hyphenation points to a made-up
word.
> .de op
> One brevallamarkol, two brevallamarkols.
> .sp
> ..
> .warn 0
> .ll 1n
> .op
> .hw brev-all-a-mar-kol
> .op
> The third sentence still needs to be checked.
Yeah, I suspect neither sentence applies to GNU _troff_, as it contemplated
application to languages other than English from the outset (or very early at
least).
This would be something to note in the "Implementation Differences" part of
out Texinfo manual and of _groff_diff_(7).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66016>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
