Follow-up Comment #4, bug #51072 (project groff): [comment #1 comment #1:] > Here is that material. [snip] > > The most powerful feature using diversions is to start a > diversion within a macro definition and end it within another > macro. Then everything between each call of this macro pair is > stored within the diversion and can be manipulated from within > the macros. > > > Does it communicate any concrete information about _groff_ > that our Texinfo manual (now) does not?
That final paragraph quoted above is perhaps inferable from the rest, but--much like the second plank of bug #57944--for people who didn't grow up groffing, it's a nonintuitive way to think of defining a diversion. Commit 7252c3db <http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=7252c3db>, which resolved that bug, did include an example of how to interleave macro definitions. I'm not sure whether a similar example, of a diversion definition spanning macros, would be a valuable addition to the Texinfo manual's diversion section, or would just bloat it. Maybe this is also something that can be shunted into a specific examples file, putting it on the plate of bug #57855. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51072> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
