[bug #62801] [me] doc/meref.me.in: Clarify a couple points about empty macro arguments

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #62801 (project groff):

[comment #2 comment #2:]
> (the "_me_ Reference Manual") explicitly expects the reader to
> possess a significant command of the _troff_ language.

Good point; I yield on this front.

> For what it's worth, several _me_ features in this document
> present examples of usage, which I would also happily chop out
> except for the fact that they are not elsewhere introduced.

I'm not sure I follow; the document is pretty light on examples.  Unless you
mean that the document's source includes -me usages that are not mentioned in
the document's content -- in which case, those seem like shortcomings that
ought to be addressed.

> Yes; my practice is not to ChangeLog changes to comments or
> indentation in source code unless they seem to be of outsized
> importance.

Maybe I wasn't clear: my concern is not with the ChangeLog entry, but that the
indentation of the revised code is misleading about the code's actual flow. 
It implies that the first "if" controls the entire indented block under it,
whereas in fact the second "if" executes unconditionally.  That is, the
indentation structure makes it appear the code sequence is:

if (A)
then
    X
    if (B)
    then
        Y
    endif
endif

when the actual code sequence is:

if (A)
then
    X
endif
if (B)
then
    Y
endif



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62801>

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