[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: .EM found missing

From: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: Re: .EM found missing
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 02:29:49 +1100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20180716

At 2020-11-15T14:13:38+0000, Dorai Sitaram via wrote:
> UTP strongly hints that the -ms macros have the end-of-input trap .em
> pre-set to a defined macro called .EM, with the implication that if
> the user wants to affect end-of-input behavior they can append or
> prepend to this macro rather than messing with .em directly. However
> groff's s.tmac sets its .em value to a macro of another name (viz.,
> .pg@end-text).
> This is probably one place where one can safely bring back
> compatibility to earlier times.  It is not necessary to give up
> .pg@end-text: .EM could either expand to or be an alias to
> .pg@end-text.  I can't think of any  modernizing rationale for groff
> to give up this convention. FWIW, both Heirloom and neatroff keep the
> .EM.

It seems like a reasonable enough idea; would you file it as a New
Feaature item on Savannah?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]