Follow-up Comment #15, bug#64285 (group groff): [comment #14 comment #14:] > we now know that in the six months that 1.23 has been out, people have complained about various changes debuting in it, but not this one (at least not where I've seen it, though of course I don't follow every forum where such complaints might be voiced).
I've been keeping an eye out as well, in many places (doing Web searches, checking out distributors' change logs and bug trackers, monitoring techie Q&A forums, and so forth). Not a peep about \s. This isn't a surprise to me, because most usage of the escape sequence that I have seen isn't ambiguous. Mostly what I see is man pages (likely because they constitute a majority of *roff documents in the world), doing stuff like: foo\s-2bar\s0baz ...that. These aren't ambiguous and we didn't change them. We can revisit the matter in another six months, maybe, to see if we need to update our observations, but assuming the level of consternation remains low to zero, then I'd say the \s change was a good example of the sort of regularizing, simplifying reform we _should_ be undertaking. Just like \D't' not altering the drawing position! ;-) I trust I will not draw contradiction when I venture that explicit/manual use of that escape sequence in documents is unlikely to be more prevalent than \s. If we want to start up another argument along these...lines, we can debate whether the \D'p' request should automatically close the specified polygon, or whether that drawing command is better thought of as a "polyline" operator. [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2023-08/msg00041.html This thread is probably the place to resurrect the discussion initially.] _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64285> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
