From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 1123 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2021 10:02:13 -0000 Received: from 4ess.inri.net (216.126.196.42) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 5 Dec 2021 10:02:13 -0000 Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com ([209.85.208.176]) by 4ess; Sat Dec 4 21:43:19 -0500 2021 Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id l7so14013595lja.2 for <9front@9front.org>; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 18:43:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=kX/rer6qbd54TqI5uxluQTUNqy8Oqm2H6HxJsfMxU2c=; b=ZzeS+0Ol0naHBzlLUCVXY13uUJE9ZiO0GjZSmO3ylUi7dqv0U0761KeccNCy5q34ce PypVlR9D4iVvfHYLGuro5TAedaoUsursa9GS1gT+VMfTxqmV2iTA9W/DzsPN3jmv7CPk aeh/ZlPrRHiV7bLNAsa/aNXoK4b3jwU1Y4Z2E+bTKPcXIchXG51wIHGZnfqB+gd/Lv5p QFqexbW/fAIUKCQe4qoaafnqlGolMceCF9lnMQhYAotX4owxz+61ZSudwHJ2zxsJQM20 /sgB4Gq3phdCuc39kTT+Ih/dc1GtYeO9dFv5Zdz3sP08zFmQkD3BmZ4LWe7Jht92MhjX udWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=kX/rer6qbd54TqI5uxluQTUNqy8Oqm2H6HxJsfMxU2c=; b=ddq39C+bY1ua66xBaT7p6iZP4auUHV0hQsaFISLvRgR8iquCdLvIpvYvPrP/DGdIwZ kh2g0K3FUd+Xrclnt29Pe3wvYiRELXOZ8EPbFs+VeXkcsoIIDk2zbNxs7jZV82apk29I M/Y1w8lkId+L4OWF6Wj5J/3rvRncMIMytb9aIngbR4yh6YOpaNy7zioJDZEAf4XTiayg Np5GAb6YzDW1RVJnd7TfweeA69czAQNt3bJ0T2D5HEskJ8f/bqyvOqMlWAG5nFWR4yBy 4RF3vQ1S0OMroyJr2Dt3NZBo5oGbARQ6Ek3Vi9H5xollmJX+ofJD0tbFRDn1mz02p29j 5Fjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531fVLOYaVysruwDoZDNS1xGEeQFG/DKMO+B48+LmrA/zuuZrp/6 Px7Ka7uifVlovyMrpx/+FLutC+SWKsE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAEmIkftD84RVpQ7h12m3yNqpWeXR0KQaJQ7Va5dpicB+ZoUkx9W3+GGVpQ7SqV0rUh0xuTw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6508:: with SMTP id x8mr31661011wru.388.1638671786244; Sat, 04 Dec 2021 18:36:26 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from beryllium.local (dyndsl-095-033-038-088.ewe-ip-backbone.de. [95.33.38.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r17sm7799650wmq.11.2021.12.04.18.36.25 for <9front@9front.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 04 Dec 2021 18:36:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (beryllium.local [local]) by beryllium.local (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id d73fd2c2 for <9front@9front.org>; Sun, 5 Dec 2021 03:36:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2021 02:36:22 +0000 From: Humm To: 9front@9front.org Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: hardware injection-oriented generator Subject: Re: [9front] [PATCH] troff: we are not htmlroff Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk Quoth Noam Preil: >The issue is that we don't correctly detect, in normal roff, that >we're NOT htmlroff, not the inverse? Correct. In normal troff, we don’t know that `h` can be used as condition in an `.if` request. What we perhaps should do is to handle any character we don’t know as false. What we do instead is weird and wonky unexpected behavior. Some stuff gets executed when it shouldn’t. Some stuff doesn’t get executed when it should. The current troff behavior on `.if h` and `.if !h` is complete garbage. What this patch does is not to improve troff’s general behavior on unknown conditions, but to let it know `h` is false. >Is this related to the differing behavior with conditionals between >troff and htmlroff? ; troff -a # same with htmlroff .de xx .tm a .. .if 0 \{\ .de xx .tm b .. .\} .xx a ← output I guess htmlroff(6) is wrong. -- Humm