> Thanks for the explanation! Hopefully, I'll find some time soon to
> review and integrate your patch.
Now I did a closer look, and I wonder why you are using `+0' as a
string argument to `.n2'. For me, this looks extremely weird, and, as
far as I can see, there is no precedence for such a strangely named
option.
What about making this `c' (for `continue') instead? I further
suggest that simply the presence of a second argument (regardless of
its value) forces compatibility mode.
In summary, what you call
.n2 +0 c
I would like to have as, say,
.n2 c 1
or
.n2 c compat
Werner
_______________________________________________
bug-groff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
