Follow-up Comment #6, bug #67711 (group groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > The foregoing conceptual model is unclear both in documentation
I agree that, whichever model is correct, it is underdocumented.
> the purpose of a character class is to avoid major tedium
Sure, but this purpose isn't at odds with the other purpose I've cited.
Indeed, this tedium-dodge is just as effective no matter which model underlies
it. My model (a.k.a. the way it has always worked) just gives it more
flexibility.
> And I think, though I'm not sure, that your model is not
> consistent with the behavior you're seeing in bug #67571, which
> explains why you're surprised by that behavior and I'm not.
I find the #67571 behavior inexplicable no matter what model is used:
intervening output should not make a .class definition get lost. But I feel
we're on the same page there now, so the above text is probably obsolete.
> I think my interpretation is consistent with Werner's express
> motivation in _groff_'s corresponding "NEWS" file entry
I'd claim my interpretation is not inconsistent with it. He said "This is
especially useful to...", not "This is exclusively useful to..."
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67711>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
