[bug #57583] [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #57583 (project groff): If you want to change anything, it would probably be best to simply delete the line ".if (\n[.warn] == 1245191) .warn" and the comment above it. Why should a macro set fiddle with user settings at all? Why not simply honour what the user requests?

[bug #57583] [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #57583 (project groff): > Your own wording is wrong. You're right. > 1) .\" Enable warnings (only if none are given on the command line). groff(7) does not document what .warn with no arguments does. That's a problem. .warn with no arguments _turns all warnings on_

[bug #57583] [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #57583 (project groff): [comment #1:] > If I understand this patch correctly, I'm not sure I agree with it. > > Rewriting the proposed commit message in my own words, I have: > > "tmac/s.tmac: Disable font warnings in nroff mode." > > If that's accurate then I don't t

[bug #57583] [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff

Update of bug #57583 (project groff): Severity: 3 - Normal => 1 - Wish Item Group: Incorrect behaviour => None ___ Follow-up Comment #2: I agree with all you

[bug #57583] [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff

Update of bug #57583 (project groff): Status:None => Need Info Assigned to:None => gbranden ___ Follow-up Comment #1: If I understand this

[bug #57583] [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff

URL: Summary: [PATCH] s.tmac: Test the default number for warnings for nroff Project: GNU troff Submitted by: bjarniig Submitted on: Sun 12 Jan 2020 08:11:17 AM UTC Category: Macro -