Follow-up Comment #35, bug #67571 (group groff): At 2026-01-20T00:12:04-0500, Dave wrote: > 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.
I'm not 100% there isn't a game afoot here, since the character flags
are lazily computed.
>> 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.
Can you improve the summary?
> 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.
I have a brain like a steel colander. Stuff just leaks right out.
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.)
I've come to find that human fickleness often arises from system
underspecification and lack of validation.
If the system is erratic and/or inconsistent, why should we not be?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67571>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
