[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] nop request
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] nop request |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:26:35 +0200 (CEST) |
> > I've now implemented a `.nop' request which is the same as `.if 1':
> >
> > .if t \{
> > . nop Hallo!
> > .\}
>
> Is `nop' a no-operation? If so, I'd expect it to be more like `.if
> 0' then `.if 1'? Also, how similar is it to `.if 1' and why would I
> need it instead?
The .nop is meant as syntactical sugar only. I believe that code like
.if a \{\
. if b \{\
. nop Hallo!
. \}
.\}
is easier to read than
.if a \{\
. if b \{\
Hallo!
. \}
.\}
and better to understand than
.if a \{\
. if b \{\
. if 1 Hallo!
. \}
.\}
Do you have a better name?
BTW, your idea of a no-operation request does already exist:
.\" ...
Werner
RE: [Groff] nop request, Ted Harding, 2000/09/04