Update of bug #59482 (project groff):
Status: Confirmed => Postponed
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #2:
I've lost my resolve on the right course for this. As I noted in comment #1,
.EM was not a _documented_ part of ms's interface (neither in Lesk 1978 nor
the BSD version by Kies and Tuthill).
_Unix Text Processing_ by Dougherty and O'Reilly is probably a major
historical driver of use of these undocumented macros.
I think the right thing to do for undocumented but historically popular back
doors into the ms macros (.RT and .NP are other examples) is to discuss the
issues head-on in an appropriate section of doc/ms.ms. Right now I think that
would come in a new section that also confronts the issue of document writers
redefining ms macros. Lesk encouraged this for some macros and ms.ms does,
too. Off the top of my head, this set consists of TA, PT, and BT.
Postponing pending further discussion or the groff 1.23.0 release.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59482>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
