Re: [Groff] problem with `refer'

[Werner LEMBERG]

> I don't think compatibility mode alone is correct.  The trouble is
> that many of us using groff and refer do use some (or even many) of
> the groff extensions.  To retroactively change refer's behavior from
> what is has always been in groff (not troff) breaks any documents
> that depend on the current behavior.  Compatibility mode doesn't
> help if any of the extensions are used.

OK.  Let's call that option `-x': neither refer nor groff do use it.

> I feel *very* strongly that if you do this you should have to
> *explicitly* activate the *new* (not old) behavior.  That way
> documents written to the current groff still work and those who want
> the new behavior can get it.  Anything else certainly violates the
> principle of least surprise, and is sure to annoy those of us
> depending on the current groff behavior.  For example, I would
> certainly be annoyed if a new printing of my book escaped to the
> printers with broken references because refer behavior changed and
> mangled a reference far away from anything that I changed in the
> manuscript.

Are you talking about a real problem or just a hypothetical one?  Have
you ever made use of this obscure feature?  The new code would of
course warn if e.g. `.]).' or the like is found, saying

  Macro `]).' ignored.
  Use option -x to make `).' a reference postfix.

For the sake of orthogonality and to remove an illogical restriction I
really favour a change of the default behaviour.  Additionally, GNU
refer already has an alternative, better syntax to specify <pre> and
<post>, using the `[' and `]' keywords within a `.[ ... .]' block.


    Werner