Follow-up Comment #2, bug #54537 (project groff):
I can't reproduce the warning with the "om.tmac" file
("test-groff -z om.tmac"), but with a shorter version:
.nr #TOC 1
.nr #LIST_OF_FIGURES 1
.nr #LIST_OF_TABLES 1
.nr #LIST_OF_EQUATIONS 1
.nr #DOC_LEAD 1
.nr #SAVED_DOC_LEAD 1
.
. if \n[#SAVED_DOC_LEAD] \{\
. if \
(\n[#TOC]=0)&\
(\n[#LIST_OF_FIGURES]=0)&\
(\n[#LIST_OF_TABLES]=0)&\
(\n[#LIST_OF_EQUATIONS]=0) \
. ie !\n[#DOC_LEAD]=\n[#SAVED_DOC_LEAD] .nr #RERUN_TRAPS 1
. el .nr #SKIP_TRAPS 1
. \}
"test-groff -z <file>" produces:
troff: prof.block:16: warning: unbalanced .el request
I find using blocks a better practice, is more future proof, lines
(including comments) can be added, removed from the block, without
disturbing, destroying the skeleton, or adding block delimiters.
Blocks also help the compiler, interpreter to process the code with
certainty (simpler rules).
The eye reads physical lines, although the interpreter, compiler can
just get one single line to process.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54537>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
bug-groff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-groff
