[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [groff] [patch] modernize -T ascii rendering of opening single quote
From: |
Jeff Conrad |
Subject: |
Re: [groff] [patch] modernize -T ascii rendering of opening single quote |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Feb 2019 00:16:39 +0000 |
> On Thu, Jan 31 2019 at 02:14:13 PM, Ingo Schwarze <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > i just submitted the following patch to the groff bugtracker:
> >
> > https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?55616
> >
> > The (identical) rationale and patch are reproduced below for
> > convenience.
> >
Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
> I've always found the rendering of the asymetrical single quotes like
> `this' quite odd, so I vote for.
I agree. I’ve used nroff since the mid-1980s (when ‘\(oq’ and ‘\(cq’
didn’t even exist), and using accent grave for an opening quote has
always looked pretty amateurish to me. A typewriter is typewriter, and
no amount of wishin’ and hopin’ will make it otherwise. I’m fine with
diddles like “--” for \(em (which follows long-established typewriter
practice anyway), but I think some others (such as `word') just don’t
work. I see no reason to treat ‘\(oq’ and ‘\(cq’ differently than
‘\(lq’ and ‘\(rq’.
I still coded as `word' and ``word'' because troff was the favored
output, but I winced at the resulting ASCII output. I used (and still
use) a script to replace ‘``’ with ‘\(lq’ and ‘''’ with ‘\(rq’; it’s a
bit tougher with single quotes. But with ‘\(oq’ already coded, I can’t
think of a good reason not to render it properly.
I vote for. Hopefully, I haven’t missed an obvious gotcha.
Jeff