Update of bug #60836 (project groff):
Summary: [PATCH] Document erroneous CSTR #54 description of
comparison conditional => Improve output-comparison operator better
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #6:
[comment #5 comment #5:]
> I think the text I added misrepresents CSTR #54 taken as a whole. What do
you think? If a revert happens, I am unconcerned with who is credited.
Yeah, I have to agree. I think it would be good to call out the "identical
motions" requirement explicitly, possibly including examples.
I did go ahead and do the reversion, and pushed it.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60836>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
