[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug #63354] Refine fallbacks.tmac

From: Dave
Subject: [bug #63354] Refine fallbacks.tmac
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 04:43:43 -0500 (EST)

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #63354 (project groff):

A possible refinement to U+203D:

The current definition is

.if t .fchar \[u203D] \o'?!'\" interrobang

This (theoretically) leaves the character undefined on the terminal--which it
has been until recently, so not a huge deal--but as long as we're defining
fallbacks anyway, the string "!?" is closest in spirit achievable without
overstriking.  Thus the line could be:

.ie t .fchar \[u203D] \o'?!'\" interrobang
.el .fchar \[u203D] !?

HOWEVER.  Because of the ordering issue discussed in bug #63332, the ".if t"
lines are not working correctly in nroff mode anyway, meaning that the
character as currently defined is resulting in "!" being output on terminals.

I feel that, if we can only use one character to represent the interrobang,
the "?" is a better choice than the "!" (as the "?" can change the meaning of
a phrase, while the "!" typically only changes its level of emphasis).  So as
long as fallbacks.tmac can't test what mode it's in, I'd recommend changing
the order of the current definition, so that it reads:

.fchar \[u203D] \o'!?'\" interrobang

This won't change the typesetting at all, but will (IMHO) improve the terminal
output a bit.


Reply to this item at:


Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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