Follow-up Comment #1, bug #68242 (group groff): [comment #0 original submission:] > Branden wrote in a recent email > (http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2026-04/msg00024.html), "it might be nice to > extend the `warn` request's syntax to support chmod(1)-style expressions. > > .warn -font > .warn =all > .warn =w-font > .warn =all+style-missing" > > For cross-roff compatibility, groff could support the same syntax Heirloom > troff uses with its .warn request. Section 21.4 of the "Heirloom > Documentation Tools Nroff/Troff User's Manual" documents the .warn request as > follows. > > "Control warning messages, which may be given either numerically as bits or > symbolically as names. With a + sign, the respective bit or name is enabled > in addition to the currently enabled categories; with a - sign, it is > disabled. Omitting the sign sets the categories exactly to the given bit or > name. *.warn 0* disables all warnings."
I like that. As long as some jackanapes doesn't innovate a warning category name that starts with a decimal numeral, my proposed '=' syntax is indeed unnecessary. I wonder if Heirloom's `warn` request accepts complex expressions as I envision. I don't think it matters too much; the current maintainer, or at least the only person who seems to have expressed interest in performing maintenance (and that 7 years ago) has sworn off _groff_ compatibility,[1] so if our syntax is upward-compatible with theirs, there's little reason for anyone to complain. [1] "[https://github.com/n-t-roff/heirloom-doctools/issues/87#issuecomment-496761804 The further development I had in mind was to advance the typographical capabilities without any particular consideration for badly coded man pages or groff compatibility.]" _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68242> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
