[bug #63812] Discussion of conditional expressions in docs should mention `.if h`

[John Gardner]

URL:
  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63812>

                 Summary: Discussion of conditional expressions in docs should
mention `.if h`
                 Project: GNU roff
               Submitter: alhadis
               Submitted: Fri 17 Feb 2023 03:55:09 PM AEDT
                Category: General
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: Documentation
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
         Planned Release: None


    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comments:


-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 17 Feb 2023 03:55:09 PM AEDT By: John Gardner <alhadis>
Plan 9 (and by extension, plan9port and 9front <http://9front.org>) include a
utility called htmlroff
<https://9fans.github.io/plan9port/man/man7/htmlroff.html> that adds a new
single-character condition to its `.if`/`.ie` requests:

> *Conditional input*
> To make it easier to write input files that can be formatted by both _troff_
and _htmlroff_, _htmlroff_ adds a new condition *h* which evaluates true in
*.if* and *.ie* requests. The *t*  condition continues to evaluate true, to
accomodate input files trying to distinguish between _troff_ and _nroff_. To
write a conditional matching _troff_ alone, use ‘*.if !h .if t*’.
Since groff(7)'s _"Conditional expressions"_ section mentions the historical
Vroff extension (`.if v`), it should probably also mention the unsupported
htmlroff extension too (`.if h`), if only for completeness's sake.







    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63812>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/