On Sun, Dec 06, 2020, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > Hi Peter! > > Thanks for the swift follow-up! > > At 2020-12-05T13:35:09-0500, Peter Schaffter wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > 1. Revert the change, possibly telling users in the manual how > > > write their own validity-testing wrapper for .ch. > > > > What would such a wrapper look like? I am unaware of how to test > > for whether a trap has been set other than .ptr, which prints to > > stderr. > > I don't think there is.
I didn't think so, but if there's one thing I've learned about groff, it's that the list knows collectively what an individual may not. :) > > I'd recommend mac (.warn 512), and update the description of mac > > in troff(1) and elsewhere to "Use of undefined strings, macros, > > diversions, and traps." My reasoning is that .ch "uses" a trap, > > hence the absence of that trap means you're using something > > undefined. > > I like this, and would be happy to implement it. I don't know if my > scruples will permit to add simply "and traps" to the description like > that, though experts will surely "know what is meant", but I think I > interpret your intentions. You do indeed. "...and traps" was off-the-cuff. > I either lacked imagination when implementing > e3b909eda11419daaf9e1ff028defc0e972ac827 or underestimated your > creativity in exercising dark corners of the *roff language design > space. :) -- Peter Schaffter https://www.schaffter.ca