[bug #63812] Discussion of conditional expressions in docs should mention `.if h`

[John Gardner]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #63812 (project groff):

[comment #4 comment #4:]
> Here's what I have at the moment.
Looks good. One nanoscopic nitpick, which borders on bikeshedding:

> and GNU @code{troff} may provide additional operators in the future.
The projected likelihood of introducing such a backwards-incompatible feature
is marginal at best, and indicative of feature creep at worst. I wouldn't rule
the possibility out completely, but it's still not likely enough to warrant
mentioning in Groff's documentation.

(I told you it was a nitpick…)


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63812>

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