On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 07:03:28AM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Bjarni, > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 04:12:07PM +0000, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > >[...] > > > .BI \-f " program-file\fR,\fP "\c > > > .BI \-\^\-file " program-file" > > This is a wrong use of '\c', as its purpose is to join the output of > > two macros _without_ an intervening space character. > > > > So remove ' ' and '\c', changing > > > > .BI \-f " program-file\fR,\fP "\c > > > > to > > > > .BI \-f " program-file\fR,\fP" > My change is wrong as I ignored the 'TP' macro, which uses only one (logical) line, but I made two physical lines.
The simples change is to join the two lines with an '\', and put the space after the comma (punctuation), so .BI \-f " program-file\fR, \fP" \ \-\^\-file " program-file" One can construct a one line expression by including a temporary roman font change in one of the arguments for a two-fonts macro. I find it is best to include the space with the punctuation, so .BI \-f " program-file\fR, \fP" \-\^\-file " program-file" > Thanks, this make the build proceed, however, now it dies in the > following line: > .TP > .BI \-F " fs\fR, \fP"\c > .BI \-\^\-field-separator " fs" > > Escape sequence \c encountered. This is not completely handled yet. > > Note that here there is no space before the " > > Removing also this (and subsequent) "\c" makes the build proceed, > however, in other files "\c" exists as well and I'm vary of removing > the as well. > > I *think* the difference is that the failing lines have a ".BI" at the > beginnig. (And the non failing do not.) Does this make sense to you? > Transform this to one line (as the arguments are of short length) .TP .BI \-F " fs\fR, \fP" \-\^\-field-separator " fs"
