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

[John Gardner]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #63812 (project groff):

[comment #6 comment #6:]
> Long stories short, I want a `for` request that will iterate over
macros/strings/diversions
Interesting. Does it resemble this
<https://github.com/Alhadis/Mono/blob/25765171fbf676b623a4bcbf3d9f93384ef83040/ono.tmac#L512-L531>?

> and new conditional operators to test for "nodes"
YES. PLEASE. The whole "nodes versus strings" semantic is what led me down the
aforementioned rabbit hole. The fact I even got it working (without GNU
extensions, no less) is a testament to my neurotic stubbornness.

> and for glyphs that are actually defined in the current font
I've probably spent too many hours coding in PostScript, but wouldn't an
escape sequence that expands to the name of the font containing the requested
glyph be more useful? At least that way you'll be able to compare the output
against the name of the current font.

(This corresponds to PostScript's `where` operator, which locates the entry on
the dictionary stack which defines an entry with the given key. I'll shut up
now)


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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