[bug #65763] strictly compare strings in macro packages

[Dave]

Update of bug #65763 (group groff):

                Severity:              3 - Normal => 2 - Minor              

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #2:

[comment #1 comment #1:]
> I suspect this may be low priority,

I agree.

> perhaps so low that it's not worth doing, because _as deployed_,
> all of _groff_'s full-service macro packages are prepared to
> format documents using the basic Latin character set.

Although documents in languages using Latin alphabets are likely groff's
biggest use, I think it's hard to justify declining to fix (as opposed to
deferring fixing) known bugs when it's used for non-Latin-alphabet languages,
especially as groff moves toward supporting such languages in other ways (the
fixed bug #63076, the pending bug #62830).

> I'm also still a bit undecided whether we should have a
> syntactically sweeter way of doing string comparisons.

Like you, I dislike the idea of adding basic language constructs to do
something the language can already do, and also find the way the language
already does this rather ugly.  So I'm no help in deciding.

> It grabs the symbol '~' for use as an operator in a conditional
> expression

This breaks back compatibility with ~'s current use as a synonym (along with
myriad other characters) for the ' conditional operator.  That doesn't
disqualify it, IMHO, but it is another strike against it.

> I suggest that nothing about it is a priority for 1.24.

I agree with this too.  Lowered the severity to reflect this.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65763>

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