[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Groff] nop request
From: |
Ted Harding |
Subject: |
RE: [Groff] nop request |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Sep 2000 09:51:32 +0100 (BST) |
Hi All,
On 02-Sep-00 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> I've now implemented a `.nop' request which is the same as `.if 1':
>
> .if t \{
> . nop Hallo!
> .\}
Having at first been a bit puzzled by the above I think the subsequent
exchange has clarified it. If I understand right, Werner's ".nop" is
really "the request that isn't there", i.e.
.nop any_stuff
is equivalent to
any_stuff
Now I can follow Werner's motive, that something like this can help
make the layout more legible.
However, I wish it wasn't called "nop", which for me, by long
tradition (going back to days of programming microprocessors),
means "do nothing [but possibly take some time to do it]",
and this was why I was puzzled to start with.
Also, from time to time I use a definition
.de nop
..
as in
.blm nop
and the like, so calling Werner's innovation "nop" clashes with that.
Furthermore, look in tmac.s:
.de @not-implemented
address@hidden sorry, \\$0 not implemented
.als \\$0 @nop
..
.als TM @not-implemented
.als CT @not-implemented
.de @nop
..
(and elsewhere).
Granted "@nop" is not the same as "nop", but it's close enough
to cause confusion.
So, while I can see the point of Werner's proposal, I think it would
be a very good idea to call it something else. Maybe ".pad"? I don't
have a clearly good suggestion for the name.
Finally, I think the interpretation as 'equivalent to ".if 1"' is not
obvious: does it mean you can use
.nop \{Some input
and some more input
.\}
If not, then is it not equivalent to
.de nop
\\$*
..
??
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 284 7749
Date: 04-Sep-00 Time: 09:51:32
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
RE: [Groff] nop request,
Ted Harding <=