Follow-up Comment #12, bug #68133 (group groff):
> Yes, that's implied by your previous sentence (and a reasonable level of > diligence in writing documentation). Apologies, an entire paragraph is missing from my response; I was workshopping my response and deleted what I thought was a continuation of a quote-block. The reason I brought up undocumented behaviour in the abstract was because I wanted to compare how undefined behaviour is documented in _bash_(1) and the *STANDARDS* sections of other manual pages of POSIX-sanctioned utilities, but realised those probably aren't the best examples I could give (mainly after remembering [https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck#testimonials this] testimonial of the ever-popular _shellcheck_(1) utility…) I know nothing I say will change so your mind, and I'll just have to prepare myself for other unexpected breaking changes in future Groff releases. The only other thing I'll add is that problematic `.tr` usage should emit a warning explaining "`o` is attempting to be translated to non-character `\fB`; a blank space will be added instead". _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68133> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
