Hi Alex, At 2022-07-30T00:38:13+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On 7/29/22 23:08, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > At 2022-07-29T17:26:10+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hmm, considering that the amount of multiline comments with 80-char > terminals is still non-negligible (not in this page, but in all type > pages), I think I prefer to consistently support them, even when I > don't need. That will have 2 side effects: contributors will > experience a more consistent syntax; and I will support smaller > terminals with extra-attractive comments. Okay. If you trust your contributors to understand that column just for the comment leader, then I trust you. :) > I'll send a v5 with another page, to show that tabs are not good > enough. And I'll try to not forget CCing groff@. It'll be good to have a look. > > > > I'm really looking forward to killing off another application of > > > > `PD`. > > > > > > Ok. T think I'll remove .PD, and leave the extra blank line until > > > .TS is fixed. A blank line will not hurt too much. > > > > The fix should be in my next push; I merely got caught in a yak > > shave called groff_mm(7). > > Nice. Still, I woudn't make use of it so fast, if the side effect in > old groff(1) versions was something more than a blank line. It wasn't. I was confusing this issue with Savannah #49390. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?49390 Savannah #43637 is also pretty gross. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?43637 I rendered all the groff man pages from Git HEAD with groff 1.22.4, with the `sp` request deleted from the `TS` definition and a fallback definition of `MR` (just like the one I presented in arguments with Ingo) in man.local, and observed no pertinent layout problems. > Poor contributors are unlikely to have latest groff for git HEAD :) Don't I know it. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature