Eric S. Raymond wrote:
We can cooperate to work around this. One obvious way: If the
square-bracket aliases on your page were marked up as the groff
escapes \*[lB] and \*[rB] instead of '[' and ']' they would render the
same, but I think I could teach my parser to no longer be confused and
I wou
Paul Eggert :
> Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > We can cooperate to work around this. One obvious way: If the
> > square-bracket aliases on your page were marked up as the groff
> > escapes \*[lB] and \*[rB] instead of '[' and ']' they would render the
> > same, but I think I could teach my parser to n
On 06/13/2018 01:24 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I see the problem, but I'm afraid my groff-fu is no strong enough to grok your
proposed solution. Why will those sequences work? What are they doing?
They should work for groff and traditional troff, because \" begins a
comment. I was hoping that
Paul Eggert :
> On 06/13/2018 01:24 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > I see the problem, but I'm afraid my groff-fu is no strong enough to grok
> > your
> > proposed solution. Why will those sequences work? What are they doing?
>
> They should work for groff and traditional troff, because \" begins
On 06/13/2018 03:07 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
OK, this should fly. Please mark up the manual sources with those (and put
a comment somewhere explaining why we're doing this, to deconfuse future
maintainers) and mail me a copy. Then I'll teach doclifter to DTRT.
It turns out to be more compli
Paul Eggert :
> It turns out to be more complicated, since test.1 and ln.1 are automatically
> generated by help2man. Also, in looking at the troff source I thought it'd
> be cleaner to quote the square brackets, like this for example:
>
> .B "["
>
> If this doesn't work for doclifter please let
