Follow-up Comment #10, bug #67817 (group groff): At 2026-01-20T13:54:50-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > A syntax that occurred to me, and would do no more violence to `-a` > output than was already present in groff 1.23.0 and earlier is: > > <S glyph-name-in-font> > <N glyph-index-in-font> > > Since a space is not valid in a *roff identifier (nor in a font > description file's glyph name), this _should_ be unambiguous.
Poor choice of words. This syntax would be _no more_ ambiguous than the
status quo ante. Nothing in `-a` output tells you which font is
selected, but nothing ever has. Reporting an inscrutable index value
might heighten awareness of this issue, but it's of long standing.
...and wouldn't heighten such awareness _more_ than "<--->" would.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67817>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
