Update of bug #64360 (group groff):
Summary: [PATCH] [gropdf] does not correctly handle white
space after 'w' command => [PATCH] [gropdf] does not handle white space after
'w' command
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #42:
To expand on one of my previous replies:
[comment #41 comment #41:]
>> I am unable to find a "feature change" ticket which
>> proposes to alter current grout format
>
> Bug #63544 proposes it.
In fact, most of the objections raised in this ticket don't apply to this
ticket at all, but to the #63544 proposal. _This_ ticket seeks no change to
grout, only to make gropdf more flexible in the grout it accepts. So I'm
having trouble seeing the objection to modifying gropdf to make it accept the
same grout that groff's other postprocessors accept.
One could quibble with the word "correctly" in the Summary, but remove that
word and the change _this_ ticket proposes is still nonintrusive and hinders
no comparison of grout from one release to the next. In fact I'll go ahead
and remove it now, so we don't have to be sidetracked arguing about whether
the current behavior is "correct," and can focus on the question of whether
making the postprocessors more consistent with each other is a good idea.
The discussion about troff _emitting_ different grout from past releases
belongs in #63544, and maybe on the email list. While I suspect no one else
cares about grout whitespace, soliciting feedback from a wider audience can
confirm or refute that suspicion.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64360>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
