[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Little oversight in hdtbl/examples/common.roff (i think)

From: Steffen Nurpmeso
Subject: Re: [Groff] Little oversight in hdtbl/examples/common.roff (i think)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:52:24 +0200
User-agent: s-nail v14.8.0-87-ge1572e7

Hallo Werner,

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
 |Sorry for the late reply.

of course.
Thanks for doing so much work on and maintaining GNU roff such
a long time.

 |> Now this: in the outsourced common hdtbl example code i think i've
 |> found an oversight?  Is the attached diff correct?
 |I don't think so.  The idea is that the hdtbl example modifies the
 |standard variables for general typesetting, not the ones specific to
 |hdtbl.  Do you notice a rendering difference?

I haven't tried it ._. (S-roff is not usable yet).
I just noted while syncing that in [6fb4a0a] (Fix last patch and
use `t*' prefix for all non-public stuff, 2010-02-08, yourself)
s and v of hdtbl were renamed to t*s and t*v but that didn't reach
common.roff, and methinks-ed "what else should s and v else refer
to"?  'Should have mentioned this context at first!

 |> And say, _how_ painstaking exactly do i have to take care for GPL3
 |> versus GPL2 "violations"?  [...]
 |Alas, I don't know.

Me too, i ended up doing things that manifest like

    TODO Yet i didn't remove the variable "left" since i don't know
    TODO wether that wouldn't have side effects (since Werner did
    TODO remove it there are surely none, but it takes intellectual
    TODO property to get there and i'm in fear of violating copyright
    TODO if i'd blindly take it).

in commit messages and hope it is enough.  (Also if the diff will
reduce to zero shall i find out that "left" really can be removed
that is.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]