Follow-up Comment #12, bug #68420 (group groff): [comment #7 comment #7:] > CSTR #54 did not specify what happens when the control, > no-break control, and escape characters are not all distinct. ... > In _my opinion_, because the behavior is unspecified, no > reliable prediction can be made.
This strikes me as somewhat a mischaracterization of CSTR #54. To my
knowledge, it doesn't claim to be a specification. One could argue that AT&T
troff itself is the specification; indeed, (1) many details about troff cannot
be answered by CSTR #54, and AT&T troff's behavior has been used to fill in
these gaps; and (2) when the behavior of AT&T troff differs from what CSTR #54
documents, it's the latter generally considered to be in error (unless the
"behavior is so anomalous that it must be considered a bug," as the groff
manual states at one point).
So the behavior in question is _undocumented_, but potentially still
_specified_, because AT&T troff did _something_ in this situation.
I don't know what that something is, so it too may fall in the
too-anomalous-to-clone bucket. That is, the above are general observations,
not ironclad conclusions about this ticket. I leave the exercise of applying
the general to the specific to Martin and/or the FreeBSD folk who authored the
unusual usage.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68420>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
