[bug #59317] [PATCH] doc/groff.texi cosmetic cleanup

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #59317 (project groff):

(This comment really has little to do with this now-closed bug.  This is a
response to commit 0c559f5f
<http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=0c559f5f>, which is a
follow-on set of changes to the commit 453c8af8
<http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=453c8af8> that closed
this bug.  These remarks seem too trivial to post to the groff list, so I'm
shoving them here.)



> * (Strings): Explain style recommendation of ending string definitions
>   with comment escapes since Dave took it out of my example; (fair, it
>   might have obscured the point there).

Perhaps, but it also sent me on a snipe hunt to try to figure out what groff
did differently with and without it.  When various tests on various groff
versions indicated the answer was "nothing," I concluded it was a bit of
leftover line noise from when you were developing the example.  So the edit
was also to save readers (at least those who haven't internalized the "good
style" tip some 300 lines above) a similar detour.

Your added parenthetical addresses both these concerns, so I think we're good
here.

> * Hyphenate "constant-width" when used as attributive phrase.

This is a clear improvement, but I wonder if the more standard adjectives
"fixed-width" or "monospaced" would be better still.

> * (Identifiers) Refer to actual ISO character encoding standards, not
>   just "ASCII".

I'm all for precision, but as a name for the encoding, "ASCII" is much more
widely known than "ISO 646."  Perhaps consider retaining "ASCII" as a
parenthetical?

I also attached a new patch to correct a trivial typo this commit introduced.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59317>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/