From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Debian-exim@smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.185.217]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o62NhNrb010128 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:43:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hekate.usta.de (asta-nat.asta.uni-karlsruhe.de [172.22.63.82]) by smtp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1) id 1OUptA-00075c-WE; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:43:21 +0200 Received: from donnerwolke.usta.de ([172.24.96.3]) by hekate.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OUptA-0008Sa-VG for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:43:20 +0200 Received: from iris.usta.de ([172.24.96.5] helo=usta.de) by donnerwolke.usta.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUptA-00038u-UP for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:43:20 +0200 Received: from schwarze by usta.de with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OUptA-0002n3-Kj for discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:43:20 +0200 Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 01:43:20 +0200 From: Ingo Schwarze To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: desired .Bk semantics? Message-ID: <20100702234320.GC6026@iris.usta.de> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Hi, after much headbanging while trying to understand tmac files, i guess i finally figured out what .Bk -words is supposed to do. It seems it has nothing to do with macros, but simply with - lines in the input file! My impression is that .Bk -words avoids line breaks inside the output generated from each input line. Perhaps that's why it is called -words (as opposed to -line). Duh. Before i start implementing that - it will be a bit tricky, because Bk will be the first macro having explicit BLOCKs and implicit BODYs - i should like to get feedback whether you 1) agree with my analysis 2) agree that is sane semantics As far as i can see, it does seem at least semi-sane and would probably fix the remaining .Bk issues in our tree. But i don't want to implement it and then have everybody yell at me what a bad idea it is. =:c) Yours, Ingo P.S. Running the following test file through groff 1.20.1 (NEW groff) seems to support my analysis. Running it through our old groff just shows how buggy our old groff is. Oh well... .Dd July 2, 2010 .Dt BK-BREAK 1 .Os .Sh NAME .Nm Bk-break .Nd handling of word keeps .Sh SYNOPSIS .Nm .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x .Bk -words .Oo .Oo a Oc .Oo b Oc .Oc .Ek .Pp .Nm .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x .Bk -words .Oo .Oo a Oc Oo b Oc .Oc .Ek .Pp .Nm .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x .Bk -words .Oo a b .Oc .Ek .Pp .Nm .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x .Bk -words .Oo a b .Oc .Ek .Pp .Nm .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x .Bk -words .Oo a Oc b .Ek .Pp .Nm .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x x x .Ar x x x x x x .Bk -words .Oo a Oc b .Ek -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv