Hi, Dave! At 2021-06-05T19:38:50-0500, Dave Kemper wrote: > > * Drop notice of unsafe mode as "old" behavior; it's over 20 > > years old. > > I wonder if "old" here was intended to contrast with AT&T troff > behavior, which was to always run in what groff considers unsafe mode > (in that it had no such distinction).
Possibly. > Safer mode being a groff innovation does not seem well documented > elsewhere: the Texinfo manual doesn't mention it, and groff_diff(7) > covers only input and output differences, not invocation differences. > (groff_diff(7) mentions the \n[.U] register but nothing else regarding > this mode.) So I wonder if it's worth keeping the distinction here, > though perhaps terming it "historical" or "traditional" rather than > "old" behavior. I think that's a good idea but I think I'd prefer to document it in troff(1) instead of groff(1). Firstly, groff(1) attempts to document options recognized by troff only minimally, and secondly, those accustomed to traditional *roff behavior are, I would think, a lot more likely to be looking at troff(1) than groff(1) in the first place. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
