Follow-up Comment #55, bug #63354 (group groff): [comment #54 comment #54:] > The remaining issues, as laid out in comment #0: ... > So I shall do nothing more with these issues.
I stand by this regarding the cited issues, but closer inspection reveals a
couple more minor issues lurking in this ticket's voluminous comments.
* Comment #20 documents a commit that comments out the \[u200B] fallback, with
an explanatory code comment citing the blocking bug. But as comment #5
explains, the bug blocks the _corrected_ fallback; the fallback commented out
by this commit would not work under any circumstances.
* Comment #39 (with support from comment #41 and comment #42) mentions groff
ought to treat U+0082 equivalently to U+200B.
* Comment #10 mentions that the code comment about the \[u2011] fallback ought
to refer to bug #63360. The code comment ultimately added (see comment #20
again), however, says "awaits resolution of Savannah #63354" (the ticket
you're currently reading, which is closed).
* Comment #0 outlines a reason to tweak the \[u2052] fallback, and cites a
roadblock to doing so. In comment #47 I declined to pursue this. However,
the issue and its blocker ought to be documented in a code comment.
So a new ticket will be forthcoming after all.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63354>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
