At 2025-12-23T16:49:05-0600, Dave Kemper wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 3:13 PM G. Branden Robinson > I don't object to this particular change -- I agree that it being a > debugging rather than production request gives its back compatibility > less weight -- but to the idea that groff innovations are absolved > from compatibility responsibilities. That ignores how much of troff > history *is* now groff history.
Point taken. I'll soften my rationale to a claim that the groff request name `ptr` is _less_ sacrosanct than the AT&T `pm` request name. We can retain the "compatibility wrapper macro" for as long as seems necessary. I'll be curious to see how much feedback we get from groff 1.24.0 users on the `hpfcode` "rug pull". NEWS: * The `hpfcode` request now emits an error when used, advising of its planned withdrawal, but then proceeds with normal behavior. The documented replacement mechanism, the `hcode` request, has existed since groff 1.02 (June 1991) at the latest. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
