At 2024-12-18T01:04:58+0100, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > Wrapping a diversion inside a character definition is indeed a > > novel thing to do. At first blush, I admire the creativity. > > At second blush, the prescriptivist and black-gloved input > > validator in me recoils. ("Why isn't this banned?" he roars.) > > My third reaction is as a system designer; we should allow > > such feature composition unless we have a _good_ reason not to. > > Macro processing is all about string expansion, and in troff, > macros and diversions (and character definitions in groff) > are also just special forms of strings, so there is no > a priori reason this should not work. > However, I suspect there might be difficulties in some > circumstances (e.g., when used as argument in a macro call) > if the expanded material contains newlines.
Yes. This may lie at the heart of Savannah #66443, which in turn is an issue onf raised a couple of months ago. https://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2024-10/msg00039.html Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature