[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix

From: Russ Allbery
Subject: Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 15:49:21 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)

"G. Branden Robinson" <> writes:

> For what it's worth, groff and Heirloom doctools nroff don't print
> "something else" in bold (this is true even in Heirloom's default, _not_
> groff compatibility, mode), and DWB 3.3 nroff does.

Oh, incidentally, I ran into what felt to me like a bug in groff that I
think has been there for a while.  Two people noticed it within a month,
but I think the bug has been around for quite a while.

The new comment in Pod::Man largely explains it:

# Originally, this function was much simpler because it went directly from \fB
# to \f(CW and relied on \f(CW clearing bold since it wasn't \f(CB.
# Unfortunately, while this works for mandoc, this is not how groff works;
# \fBfoo\f(CWbar still prints bar in bold.  Therefore, we force the font back
# to the default before each font change.

This sadly results in some rather tedious font manipulation in Pod::Man,
although most of the font complexity is still due to the Solaris bug.

I'm guessing that \f(CR would have cleared bold, and \f(CW doesn't because
it's weird and special, and that's why this isn't a bug?

Russ Allbery (             <>

reply via email to

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