Re: [9front] proof and page

Re: [9front] proof and page

[ori]

Quoth Stuart Morrow <morrow.stuart@gmail.com>:
> proof: don't confuse ""(1)
> 
> diff -r d072b459519d sys/src/cmd/proof/htroff.c
> --- a/sys/src/cmd/proof/htroff.c	Thu Nov 26 11:18:41 2020 -0800
> +++ b /sys/src/cmd/proof/htroff.c	Thu Nov 26 22:40:31 2020 +0000
> @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@
>  			continue;
>  		}
> 
> -		fprint(2, "illegal;  try q, 17, +2, -1, p, m.7, /2, x1, y-.5 or return\n");
> +		fprint(2, "illegal -- try q, 17, +2, -1, p, m.7, /2, x1, y-.5 or return\n");
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 

Will look at the page patch later, but for this one,
I'll commit with one change: '--' to ':' should avoid
confusing "" and looks better to my eyes.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Re: [9front] proof and page

[Stuart Morrow]

Probably the reason for the semicolon was it's actually a sentence
that way. So I followed that line of thought with my '--'.

Anyway, I was in proof (quite a few days ago now, sorry for delay)
making it consistent with what I did to page (don't know why I didn't
think to do that earlier, when the whole point of the page patch was
consistency) and now I think we should just delete proof, at least
provided nobody claims to use it. The whole thing is bugs. Easy to
fix, but still. It doesn't do anything that page doesn't do better.

Here's what would need to change:

man (delete -p or alias it to -P)
man(1)
troff(1)
rio(1), which inexplicably references proof(1).

Executables stick around after the source is gone (I still have
ape/mv|cp), so I would want the deletion of cmd/proof to be on a
time-delay, so that that one last bug fix ('illegal;') can mk install
for everyone.

Stuart

Re: [9front] proof and page

[ori]

Quoth Stuart Morrow <morrow.stuart@gmail.com>:
> Probably the reason for the semicolon was it's actually a sentence
> that way. So I followed that line of thought with my '--'.
> 
> Anyway, I was in proof (quite a few days ago now, sorry for delay)
> making it consistent with what I did to page (don't know why I didn't
> think to do that earlier, when the whole point of the page patch was
> consistency) and now I think we should just delete proof, at least
> provided nobody claims to use it. The whole thing is bugs. Easy to
> fix, but still. It doesn't do anything that page doesn't do better.
> 
> Here's what would need to change:
> 
> man (delete -p or alias it to -P)
> man(1)
> troff(1)
> rio(1), which inexplicably references proof(1).
> 
> Executables stick around after the source is gone (I still have
> ape/mv|cp), so I would want the deletion of cmd/proof to be on a
> time-delay, so that that one last bug fix ('illegal;') can mk install
> for everyone.
> 
> Stuart
> 

I'm ok with this, as long as nobody else objects.

Re: [9front] proof and page

[Stanley Lieber]

On December 5, 2020 7:19:52 PM EST, ori@eigenstate.org wrote:
>Quoth Stuart Morrow <morrow.stuart@gmail.com>:
>> Probably the reason for the semicolon was it's actually a sentence
>> that way. So I followed that line of thought with my '--'.
>> 
>> Anyway, I was in proof (quite a few days ago now, sorry for delay)
>> making it consistent with what I did to page (don't know why I didn't
>> think to do that earlier, when the whole point of the page patch was
>> consistency) and now I think we should just delete proof, at least
>> provided nobody claims to use it. The whole thing is bugs. Easy to
>> fix, but still. It doesn't do anything that page doesn't do better.
>> 
>> Here's what would need to change:
>> 
>> man (delete -p or alias it to -P)
>> man(1)
>> troff(1)
>> rio(1), which inexplicably references proof(1).
>> 
>> Executables stick around after the source is gone (I still have
>> ape/mv|cp), so I would want the deletion of cmd/proof to be on a
>> time-delay, so that that one last bug fix ('illegal;') can mk install
>> for everyone.
>> 
>> Stuart
>> 
>
>I'm ok with this, as long as nobody else objects.

i don't use proof at all.

sl