[bug #64592] [troff] registers .m and .M contain no initial value

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #64592 (project groff):

[comment #3 comment #3:]
> I agree the registers are behaving as currently documented,
> the question is whether the current behaviour makes sense.

The additional question concerns back compatibility.  \M and \m are groff
innovations, so we don't have to worry about back to AT&T troff, but they've
been in groff for many years now, and some users may rely on the current
behavior.

We should also consider cross-compatibility.  Heirloom troff has not picked up
these extensions (its manual says, "The escape sequences ... \mx, \m(xx,
\m[xxx], \Mx, \M(xx, \M[xxx], are read but discarded in groff compatibility
mode since the corresponding concepts of ... built-in color support are
foreign to Heirloom troff"), but neatroff has.  To anyone who has a neatroff
handy, does it follow groff's behavior here?

I don't oppose breaking compatibility if there's good reason, and Deri's
points make sense to me, but it should be considered.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64592>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/