I don't understand the title. pic has a define statement that works well What I was complaining about, too indirectly, is that (1,2).x is not legal pic, although (1,2) is a legal expression for a position.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 6:14 PM G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > URL: > <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68675> > > Summary: [pic] want `define` keyword for eqn-style macro > definitions > Group: GNU roff > Submitter: gbranden > Submitted: Fri 04 Sep 2026 10:06:47 PM UTC > Category: Preprocessor pic > Severity: 1 - Wish > Item Group: Feature change > Status: None > Privacy: Public > Assigned to: None > Open/Closed: Open > Discussion Lock: Unlocked > Planned Release: None > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Follow-up Comments: > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Fri 04 Sep 2026 10:06:47 PM UTC By: G. Branden Robinson <gbranden> > [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2026-09/msg00013.html Doug McIlroy > reported]: > > > Although this is good Pic code > A: (1,2) > x = A.x > this isn't > define A { (1,2) } > x = A.x > The irregularity is probably primeval. Still, it deserves to be on the > wish list for Pic improvements. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > To reply to this notification, you have two options: > * In the Web UI at <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68675>. > * By email to 347287-bugs-savannah <[email protected]>, ONLY IF you > preserve both > the 'display name' and the 'address specification' in the To: header > AND you sign your email with a GPG key registered in your Savannah account > AND you include the following line in the reply: > > {savane: user = 347287; tracker = bugs; item = 68675} > > _______________________________________________ > Message sent via Savannah > https://savannah.gnu.org/
