[bug #61710] [me] $v and $V are in the wrong namespace

[G. Branden Robinson]

Update of bug #61710 (project groff):

                  Status:               Need Info => In Progress            

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #19:

Hi, Dave!

[comment #18 comment #18:]
> > Any thoughts on comment #16?
> 
> Still pondering, in between falling down Roman numeral rabbit
> holes.  My knee-jerk reaction is that of comment #2: -me
> handles all other type-sizing matters by having the user set
> registers, so it's incongruous to do something different for
> line spacing.

...with the exception of the `sz` macro, yes.  And that can be
somewhat hand-waved if we view that as a generalization of
ms(7)'s `LG`, `SM`, and `SZ`, as noted earlier.

> Still, even if this is done with a request, .vs wouldn't be my
> first choice, as then it will do distinctly different things
> in -me documents than in plain roff, which seems needlessly
> confusing when -me could simply invent a new name for this
> macro.

Fair point.

> Redefining .vs might also break some historical -me documents
> that call .vs directly.  True, the -me manual never condoned
> the use of troff's .vs request, so strictly conformant -me
> documents shouldn't use it, but in reality it was safe in
> limited contexts, such as working around bug #60553.  (The
> workaround I posted in that bug report goes to some effort to
> use only the approved -me interface, but a more
> straightforward solution would temporarily call .vs directly.)

Also a good point.

> And yes, I know -me already redefines .ll, which might seem to
> take the wind out of this argument's sails.  But the proposed
> .vs redefinition would set registers that -me would then use
> internally in many other macros, a situation more potentially
> far-reaching than the .ll redefinition.

True.

> For that matter, the two simplest ways to resolve this bug
> would be:
> 
>  * change no code, and document that $v and $V are exceptions
>    to the general rule about $ registers; or
>  * change the names of $v and $V but nothing about how they
>    work.

I prefer the second, so I'll go ahead with that.  At least
calling them "text vertical spacing" and "display vertical
spacing" or similar will be less of a fib now after the fix to
bug #61973.

> Redesign is a worthy objective, but since no one, including
> me, has had a problem with the current functionality the whole
> time it's been around, maybe we're overthinking this.  I
> dunno, I need to ponder that idea some more. :-)

The best solution to overthinking is _always_ more thinking! ;-)

Regards,
Branden


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61710>

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