[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #62593] clarify description of end-of-sentence detection

From: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: [bug #62593] clarify description of end-of-sentence detection
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 18:05:36 -0400 (EDT)

Update of bug #62593 (project groff):

                Severity:               2 - Minor => 3 - Normal             
             Assigned to:                    None => gbranden               


Follow-up Comment #2:

[comment #1 comment #1:]
> while elsewhere discussing the fact that motions are never discarded except
at the end of an output line (horizontal) or page (vertical).

I also want to record the fact that I think some more conceptual groundwork
needs to be laid early in our Texinfo manual (and the roff(7) "Concepts"

Our documentation has been somewhat ad hoc about what constitutes "output"
versus "formatted output", and it's a tricky thing to talk about without
grappling directly with groff_out(5) commands.  (Also I badly need to revise
that page someday--it's got some of our most painful lingering Bernd-isms,
like senseless editorializing[1].)

Some rocks to steer among:
* the "formatted output comparison operator" (my unwieldy term) considers not
just written glyphs and drawn geometric primitives, but motions
* motions don't result in "output" for the purpose of the \c escape sequence,
but written glyphs and drawn geometric primitives do
* everything produced by troff -Z is "output" in a sense, of course...but
often not in a useful one for a workaday document author

I could sorely use a term for things that "put ink on paper", except of course
most of the time we aren't dealing with ink, or paper.  :-|

Just for the nonce, I want to get across the series of nested proper subsets
we have.  I groped around for some words of Greek etymology to get a couple of
fresh ones.

Device-independent output consists of COMMANDS (some of which are ACTUATORS
(some of which are SKETCHES)).

I don't _like_ these terms (except the first, although I'm not wedded even to
it).  But I think we badly need unambiguous terms for their referents to bring
order to the wretched chaos that is reflected in some of the threads on
groff@gnu we've seen this month (and over the years).

Promoting to "Normal" severity accordingly.

[1] My editorializing, by contrast, invariably stimulates deep insight in all
readers.  Sure it does...


Reply to this item at:


Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]