Update of bug #64639 (project groff):
Status: In Progress => Fixed
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
Planned Release:None => 1.24.0
Update of bug #64639 (project groff):
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
___
Follow-up Comment #6:
Works for me! Thanks as always for your swift attention to the report.
Updating status.
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #64639 (project groff):
[comment #4 comment #4:]
> Nevertheless Bjarni seems to have found a footgun. (Perhaps he has a big
gun...or big feet.)
>
> Could we use more input validation in `DRH`?
Not necessary, really. I preferred to use mom's COLOR macro in the
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #64639 (project groff):
Aha, that makes sense. Once again my guess at how _mom_ works was all wrong.
:-O
I should have known, because the `COLOR` macro's definition has been stable
for something like 20 years. If it was as griefed as my hypothesis had it,
many people
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #64639 (project groff):
[comment #2 comment #2:]
> The issue with the input in comment #1 appears to be that _mom_ assumes that
a color named "default" exists (for me, it certainly defines a string _named_
`default` with the _contents_ `default`).
cat
Update of bug #64639 (project groff):
Status:None => Confirmed
Assigned to:None => PTPi
Summary: [mom] bug #64421 is a mom-bug => [mom] odd output
with #64421 reproducer
