Follow-up Comment #21, bug #67992 (group groff): [comment #11 comment #11:] > At 2026-01-31T18:04:04-0500, Dave wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #7, bug #67992 (group groff): >> >> [comment #2 comment #2:] >>> It's not a regression to issue a diagnostic when encountering an >>> ill-formed input document when no diagnostic was issued before. >> >> Mostly agreed. However, if the new diagnostic points to something >> with no apparent relation to the ill-formedness, it's also not a >> _pro_gression. > > Yes, but that doesn't say much. Every[1] Turing-complete language with > a specification has "implementation-dependent behavior".
I'm afraid I'm missing the connection between your reply and my statement.
This is academic now, given this ticket's evolution since this exchange, but
I'm still curious, if you care to elucidate.
To restate my statement (in case that part was unclear): if one version of a
program fails to diagnose a problem, while a subsequent version, when
encountering the same problem, issues a diagnostic that bears no discernible
relation to the problem, this diagnostic has not improved the program. This
principle remains true regardless of whether or not said problem is based on
implementation-dependent behavior, hence why I can't see how your reply--which
is a true statement--relates to my observation.
You yourself have hammered on the importance of diagnostic messages
communicating actionable information to users. Users who don't spelunk into
groff source code will be only befuddled by a diagnostic about an "end trap
token" when the only thing their input has done is sent a device request.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67992>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
