Hi Brendan, > > > The typical use case is in a tagged list that uses normal vertical > > > spacing in general, but contains a few entries that need two or > > > more tags for a few of the list entries. For example, in a csh(1) > > > manual page, you might say something like: ... > > Wouldn't one just wrap the .TP paragraph in a pair of .PDs? > > > > .TP > > \fBbreak\fR \*(OK\fIn\fR\*(CK > > Exit from the enclosing... > > . > > .TP > > \fBcd\fP [\fIname\fP] > > .PD 0 > > .TP > > \fBchdir\fP [\fIname\fP] > > Change the shell's working directory to... > > .PD > > . > > .TP > > .B continue > > Continue execution of the nearest enclosing... > > Yes, that is precisely the form that Alejandro offered when inquiring > about this subject in the original post to the thread. > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2022-05/msg00022.html > > You have on multiple occasions complained of my emails being wordy. > In that light it is brow-raising to see you recapitulate messages that > were sent to this list less than three days ago.
I don't have the time for your juvenile antics, and the list could do without the noise. You seem to want to have a dig at me and this was the best complaint you could muster. I've criticised your output and actions on the GNU Groff project, you are attacking a person. There's a difference. I respect Ingo's precision and so, when he gave a typical use case for .TQ, I wanted to know what I might have missed. Thus I wrote *one line*; hardly wordy. BTW, thanks for your investigative write-up at https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?42473#comment3 -- Cheers, Ralph.