Follow-up Comment #4, bug #63587 (project groff):
[comment #3 comment #3:]
> 1. Having to create a diversion just to discover this
> implementation limit, which is in no way restricted to
> diversion applications, feels lame.
It's definitely hackish, and certainly not obvious to even (some)
semi-experienced roff users. A simple, documented interface is certainly
_better_; I was just pointing out (perhaps only to myself, or perhaps to a
vast silent savannah audience) that it's not impossible, nor even particularly
difficult, with existing groff. As an added benefit, the hack is portable, at
least to Heirloom (which, as a bonus, actually gets the number right).
Also, without knowing what the largest integer is, how does one distinguish
between a diversion trap that's very far away from the current position (i.e.,
a very large value of \n[.t]) and no diversion traps being set (i.e., also a
very large value of \n[.t])? This could be item 5 on your use-case list --
though for it to work as such, the off-by-one would have to be redressed.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63587>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
