Follow-up Comment #7, bug #67830 (group groff): Hi Branden,
thanks for making the effort to identify the commit that introduced the Captc regression. I'm glad and a bit proud to hear that my interest in groff, mm, and localisation proves help- und useful. ---- I took the liberty and had a quick look at what it would take to convert the `C`-related annotations to to ordinary words and this is the patch I came up with diff --git i/contrib/mm/m.tmac w/contrib/mm/m.tmac index 3f7398b60..1180fab35 100644 --- i/contrib/mm/m.tmac +++ w/contrib/mm/m.tmac @@ -391,2 +391,2 @@ http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=groff. -.ds Pg_type!3 D\ R\ A\ F\ T -.ds Pg_type!4 D\ R\ A\ F\ T +.ds Pg_type!3 DRAFT +.ds Pg_type!4 DRAFT @@ -1637,0 +1638 @@ numeric; got '\\$1' +. if \\n[@copy_type]>2 .tkf \\n[.f] 0 10 0 20 @@ -1638,0 +1640 @@ numeric; got '\\$1' +. if \\n[@copy_type]>2 .tkf \\n[.f] I'm uncertain about the s1 n1 s2 n2 values for tkf requst, as I don't think I've fully understood description of it the manual. Maybe you could provide some context, another explanation, and possibly sensible values? FYI: I used the following commands (with the patch above applied locally in contrib/mm) to test the changes (with different values for C): nroff -M contrib/mm -mm -P-cbou -rC=3 contrib/mm/examples/memorandum.mm|cat -s and groff -M contrib/mm -mm -rC=3 contrib/mm/examples/memorandum.mm What are your thoughts on the approach and the patch? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67830> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
