Follow-up Comment #14, bug #68511 (group groff): At 2026-07-11T21:44:51-0400, Dave wrote: > Follow-up Comment #12, bug #68511 (group groff): > [comment #5 comment #5:] >> [comment #2 comment #2:] >>> There's not really a good workaround to this. >> >> I don't think this was a deliberate change. > > I was pretty sure it wasn't. The workarounds I provided here and in > bug #68510 were so that that info could be taken into account when > prioritizing work, in case they turned out to be thorny problems. > Since #68510 had a fairly simple workaround, and this one didn't, that > suggests (all else being equal, which it never is) prioritizing this > bug higher.
Both were, conceptually simple, and both arose from regressions due to
refactorings I did on the same day.
Again, conceptually, the problem is that we've been muddling around with
a proper grammar for the groff language. Several requests, like
`cflags`, `hcode`, and `rchar`, can "groff characters" (ordinary,
special, indexed) as "arguments", but unlike other "arguments" in *roff,
spaces need not separate them.
It's easier to think about a request handler if we factor the business
of gathering a "groff character" from the input stream--indifferently to
space separation--into its own function.
That's what I've done, and that made quick work of both of these
tickets. I haven't refactored the `rchar` request yet. Don't know when
that will happen. Sooner if we find out I broke it, too.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68511>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
