Update of bug #57510 (project groff):
Status: Need Info => In Progress
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #19:
[comment #18 comment #18:]
> New patch looks good to me.
Thanks, Dave!
> Just two nitpicks about the nroff.1.man changes:
>
> * Is "-P post-proc-option" the best way to say that? nroff's postprocessor
will always be grotty, right? Maybe "-P grotty-option" reinforces this more?
I think learning to associate "-P" with "(p)ostprocessor" is better pedagogy.
However, I'm emphasizing that grotty is always nroff's postprocessor in the
NEWS item for this change.
> * I'd prefer to see the page explicitly state that -h and -c are respective
aliases for -P-h and -P-c. By leaving this unstated, a user unfamiliar with
the history of how we got here might reasonably (and erroneously) infer that
because these two options are treated specially, there must be something
different about these two different ways to specify them.
That's fair. I've added language for this as briefly as I could to the man
page, and also noted it in the NEWS item.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57510>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
