[bug #64155] specifying -fZD on command line generates warnings

[Peter Schaffter]

Update of bug #64155 (group groff):

                  Status:               Confirmed => Need Info              

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #32:


[comment #28 comment #28:]
> [comment #27 comment #27:]
> > Hi Peter,
> 
> I should have spent a little longer on that comment since I tossed the ball
back into your court, even if just for advice.
> 
> > Please confirm my understanding of the foregoing and I will proceed with
the reversion right away.
> 
> Specifically, am I correct to claim either of the following?
> 
> A.  "[G]iven that mom has her own system of managing fonts, and part of her
contract with the user [...] is that [the] user will not go behind her back
and start invoking *roff requests." is a false statement.  (Possibly an
exaggeration.)

Oversimplification, possibly my fault.  You got the idea from this bit of the
documentation:

"In some cases, mom’s typesetting macros merely imitate groff primitives. In
others, they approach typesetting concerns in conceptually new ways (for
groff, at least). This should present no problem for newcomers to groff who
are learning mom. Old groff hands should be careful. Just because it looks
like a duck and walks like a duck does not, in this instance, mean that it is
a duck. When using mom, stay away from groff primitives if mom provides a
macro that accomplishes the same thing."

That's not a contract, it's a recommendation.  I don't want users imagining.
for example, that they can use either .ps or .PT_SIZE interchangeably (or
.ft/.FT) and expect the same results.  E.g. if AUTOLEAD is enabled, .PT_SIZE
changes the pointsize and updates the leading.  Plain .ps only changes the
size, hence the recommendation to stay away from groff primitives *if mom
provides a macro that accomplishes the same thing.*  There a number of macros
where the documentation explicitly states that using a primitive instead of a
macro is fine.

I'm not comfortable with the statement "mom has her own system of managing
fonts."  Other than that .FAM and .FT perform checks and set registers needed
by other macros, and the inclusion of pre-defined supplementary styles (none
loaded in positions 1-4), there is nothing unique about mom's font
management.
 
> B.  The statement "By issuing appropriate formatter instructions, you can
override these defaults before your document writes its first glyph." in our
manual should be dropped, or revised to stipulate that some macro packages
(namely _mom_), will assume that that before a document requests a glyph to be
formatted, mounting position 1 will be assigned to a style named 'R'.

I'm confused.  The docs currently say, "The default mounting position, and
therefore style, is always '1' ('R')"  Why would this suddenly only apply to
"some" macro packages?  I don't think the B. statement should be dropped, but
I would change "these defaults" because the only formatter flag pertinent to
that section of the documentation is -f <family>.



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64155>

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