Follow-up Comment #2, bug #63827 (project groff):
[comment #1 comment #1:]
> Some changes, since then I already have captured, in some shape or
> form; some others, (at least one of which looks suspiciously wrong,
> to me...
I guess I shouldn't make such statements, without corroboration. I had
planned to point out the utterly borked MR fallback, but I see you've reworked
it today! FWIW, I had already implemented my own -- simpler -- fallback, in
my fork of pdfroff.1.man:
.if !d MR \{\
.\" This document uses the MR macro, which was not available prior
.\" to groff-1.23; this minimal local fallback emulation may suffice
.\" to support formatting with earlier versions of groff.
.de MR
.IR \%\\$1 (\\$2)\\$3
..
.\}
Granted, that doesn't address the possibility that MR might be invoked with
fewer than two arguments -- because pdfroff.1.man never calls it with fewer --
but that's a trivial adjustment, for the more general case. More importantly,
my simple implementation relies on the '!d' conditional, which I suspect may
be groff-specific, (is it?), in which case, I need to address that. However,
on a related note, if we are concerned about non-groff compatibility, can we
safely use long register names, such as your 'do-fallback'?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63827>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
