Follow-up Comment #34, bug #67571 (group groff): [comment #33 comment #33:] > (Though I would add that the "go" part of the foregoing is not > necessarily well defined--bug #67703.)
Acknowledged, but that part isn't being exercised by any of our reproducers in
this ticket.
> But that in turn means that the Summary of this report cannot
> be a valid complaint.
>
> Of **course** `class` works differently depending on where in
> the input it's called.
Well, it's a summary...it doesn't capture all the nuance of the problem.
> requesting another reproducer that illustrates the behavior at issue,
I'm not sure what you now see in your own comment #14 "even more minimal"
reproducer that makes you wonder whether it's a bug, so I don't know what I
need to do to clarify that example.
However, since this maybe-a-bug goes back to at least 1.22.4, I feel no
urgency to pursue it until after the 1.24 typhoon has subsided. Especially
since I _still_ need to address bug #66919, which might actually be a 1.24
regression. (Right now, I'm leaning toward not, but I'm as fickle there as
you are here.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67571>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
