On 6/4/21, G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not certain, but I don't get the feeling bug-groff@ (or > groff-commit@) is supposed to be a discussion list.
I agree, and generally don't post to it directly, but this question seemed to have such a limited audience that would care about the topic, all of whom were likely subscribed to bug-groff, that it seemed an appropriate venue. But as we've now moved to talking about rearranging the source tree, this list makes more sense. > I also don't think it's a preprocessor, because it does not produce > troff(1) input. Definitely not a proper preprocessor, but it is a thing you run before you run the thing that does the real work, so it has a faint preprocessory odor. > Our utilities fall into 4 categories: grog doesn't sit fully comfortably with these, as they seem to be things aimed at developers or power users, whereas grog is much more general purpose. But I agree this is an improvement over where it lives now, and I don't see any better options. The only other thing I can think of is to give it its own new directory under src. This highlights its status as an unusual case, and directories are cheap. But putting it in src/util definitely makes the savannah category unambiguous.
