From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from kerhand.co.uk (_smtpd@82-69-137-214.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.137.214])
	by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8GMRnbd014412
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by kerhand.co.uk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id whTZnQQr
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:27:23 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 23:27:23 +0100
From: Jason McIntyre <jmc@kerhand.co.uk>
To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: WARNING: blocks badly nested: Oc breaks Op
Message-ID: <20100916222747.GB30810@bramka.kerhand.co.uk>
References: <20100911074624.GC5369@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <20100916212333.GB5462@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
In-Reply-To: <20100916212333.GB5462@usta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:23:33PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 08:46:00AM +0100:
> 
> > hi. pfctl(8) contains this snippet:
> > 
> > 	.Xo
> > 	.Oo Fl t Ar table
> > 	.Fl T Ar command
> > 	.Op Ar address ... Oc
> > 	.Xc
> > 
> > mandoc is not happy about having a ".Op ... Oc" line and warns:
> > 
> > 	pfctl.8:56:20: WARNING: blocks badly nested: Oc breaks Op
> > 
> > but is that fair?
> 
> Yes, i implemented that warning on purpose, and i consider it fair.
> 
> The scope of the .Op macro is defined to extend to the end of the line.
> So, the code cited above
>  - first opens .Oo
>  - then opens .Op
>  - then closes .Oo (breaking .Op)
> 
> In XML, it would look like this:  <Oo> <Op> </Oo> </Op>
> 
> When the two enclosures are different, it does even matter
> with respect to rendering:
> 
>   .Oo Fl t Ar table
>   .Fl T Ar command
>   .Pq Ar address ... Oc
> 
> produces
> 
>   [-t table -T command (address ...])
> 
> in both old and new groff, and also in mandoc.
> 
> > of course i can move the Oc to a separate line, but
> > why should i?
> 
> Because then you get nice nesting:
> Then the Op is completely contained in the Oo.
> 
> I admit groff doesn't warn about bad nesting,
> but then again, groff issues very few warnings at all.
> 
> Yours,
>   Ingo

i don;t totally understand. Oo/Oc need not happen on the same line, so i
consider it fair game that i can stick Oc on the end of an Op line.

are you saying it's a limit of the parser and i shouldn;t do it?
not only does groff not warn about it, it also renders it correctly (as
does mandoc). hence my confusion that it generates a warning.

jmc
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv