Hi Alex, At 2024-02-16T19:28:51+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:49:52AM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > And so it is with the roff languages. An arbitrary number of macro > > expansions may have taken place. > > Hmmm. But maybe approximating by saying "the original equation had > something like '5'" could decent enough?
Probably not, if I understand your use of "approximately". :) > It's not really what it was, but at least it means the same thing > (hopefully). Or by the moment you're about to produce the trout you > don't have anything that can resemble valid roff(7) anymore? Yes. That's what I mean. > > My own knowledge of it is far advanced over what it was 5 years ago, > > but I do not feel equal to the task of scaling that mountain yet. > > > > So I think this is unlikely to happen soon. > > I have patience. :) > > I'll keep pushing you from time to time with NP-Hard and NP-Complete > problems. That's fine. I resemble Bob the Angry Flower, and have a hard head. https://www.angryflower.com/245.html > > [2] ...the presentation of which in _The Unix Programming > > Environment_, my labored explanation is but a pale shadow. I > > wish someone would update that book for modern times; the > > currents of history have been particularly cruel to its > > old-school lex and yacc usage, which is some of the most > > valuable material in it. > > Talking of yacc, maybe you could have a look at a bugfix I wrote > recently for some yacc code in shadow-utils. Nobody involved in the > project seems to understand it anymore. :) > > <https://github.com/shadow-maint/shadow/pull/952> Ah, it appears that 15 hours ago, this issue was resolved with my assistance, which is good because I couldn't have +1ed the patch anyway. The syntax looks fine but I'd've needed to understand more of the application-level context to make sense of things. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature