Re: [Groff] OT: \} considered as macro argument regarding register .$

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Carsten,

> It could unfortunately be off topic in case it is not a groff issue.

I think the list is also OK for discussing troff, especially historical
behaviour.

> Heriloom and Plan 9 have the same behavior. So it could even be
> possible that this has also been the case when these conditional
> blocks had been introduced (roff? 1st nroff?).

I can't spot anything to avoid \n($. counting \} from browsing the 7th
Ed. source.  Note, 7th Ed. has been ported to x86 and can be run as a VM
if you want to test it.  http://www.nordier.com/v7x86/

BTW, as well as \n(.$ including \} in its count, it naturally follows
that \$3, for example, is \}.

> But in my opinion it should not be "fixed" if it is the traditional
> nroff behavior.

Agreed.  But documented to avoid surprises.  I checked CSTR 54 and
couldn't find anything covering this.

Cheers, Ralph.