Follow-up Comment #21, bug #66919 (group groff): At 2025-03-25T14:59:13-0400, Dave wrote: > I was speaking in the abstract--or, perhaps more pertinently, within > what is documented, which, as you note, omits (with good reason) > implementation details. But I appreciate the mathematical detail in > which you quibbled. ;-)
Heh.
>> Here's where I disagree with your model. I'd have to dig deeper
>> into the startup code to be sure, but _conceptually_, when GNU troff
>> initializes hyphenation codes, they're a perfect image of the
>> character code values. It then goes through each of them and "fixes
>> them up".
>
> I disagree with your adverb. _Conceptually_, the user is presented
> with a startup state where certain characters have certain hyphenation
> codes. What those codes are, and how they got initialized, are
> irrelevant to the user's conceptual framework. Without delving into
> the code, the user knows what's presented in the documentation, which
> is that A-Z have hyphenation codes that map to a-z--but,
> intentionally, not what those codes _are_. That's beyond the
> conceptual model; that's an implementation detail, one that's
> undocumented and therefore not guaranteed to remain the same across
> releases. (Or even, as far as the user knows, across multiple runs of
> the same groff executable.)
>
> Most users then have additional hyphenation codes added by groff
> startup files. How those get added is more discoverable to the casual
> user, because they're in startup files to which the user has direct
> access, and that are written in roff syntax. The manual documents the
> fact that startup files will likely set some additional hyphenation
> codes, though for obvious reasons gives no further detail.
>
> I submit that the foregoing is the extent of the user's _conceptual_
> framework.
>
> This may sound like some hair-splitting semantics, but it's laying
> groundwork for some practical points I'll get to later.
You might be able to hold that thought. I did some more thinking of my
own and a way of making a more concrete illustration (finally) occurred
to me. The startup files are squarely on point.
I'll follow-up once I have an opportunity to review _groff_ 1.23.0
behavior. And earlier versions, if need be.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66919>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
