Follow-up Comment #3, bug #61020 (project groff):
[comment #2 comment #2:] > The Summary cites a difference in groff vs Heirloom pic handling, but comment #1 justifies the bug's closing based on Heirloom's lack of grn, a different preprocessor. Since both roffs include pic, if there's a difference in how they handle it, that stands regardless of anything regarding grn, yes? Or am I missing something? I think I confused myself into wild delusion regarding this issue. Also see the following pending commit of mine. commit 1bc919d5e7ba613dbe48b7e0750737cdd4fa0b97 (HEAD -> master) Author: G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]> Date: Wed Oct 12 12:21:23 2022 -0500 doc/meref.me.in: Fix momentary lapse of reason. Partially revert commit 1728f9229a, 5 October. I must have eaten the wrong mushrooms; the correct argument order was "h w" all along. That is what pic(1) produces and what me(7) must accept. DWB 3.3 pic: pltroff.c: printf(".PS %.3fi %.3fi %s", yconv(ymin), xconv(xmax), s); GNU pic: src/preproc/pic/troff.cpp: printf(".PS %.3fi %.3fi", height, width); 4.4BSD e.tmac: .de PS \" *** start picture: $1=height, $2=width in units or inches [...] .nr g7 \\$2 .in (\\n(.lu-\\n(g7u)/2u .ne \\$1u GNU e.tmac: .de PS \" *** start picture: $1=height, $2=width in units or inches [...] .nr g7 \\$2 .in (u;\\n(.l-\\n(g7>?0/2) .ne \\$1u It may be best at this point to regard this ticket as irretrievable "invalid" without dwelling too much on details. 😅 _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61020> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
