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 o8PHltXa017531
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by kerhand.co.uk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id aGtmcNPo
	for <discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv>; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:47:29 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:47:29 +0100
From: Jason McIntyre <jmc@kerhand.co.uk>
To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv
Subject: Re: .Fn _* issue
Message-ID: <20100925174753.GF25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk>
References: <20100925063547.GB14869@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <4C9E13FE.2010001@bsd.lv> <20100925153525.GD25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <4C9E1911.4000506@bsd.lv>
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: <4C9E1911.4000506@bsd.lv>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 05:45:21PM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> >>> so the issue is the initial `_' in _flush_cache. it's formatted in a
> >>> different font to the rest of the function name (you can see this best
> >>> on a terminal).
> >>>
> >>> this is a long standing bug that we always had in old groff, which
> >>> really annoyed me. new groff fixed it.
> >> Jason, I'm not sure I follow as mandoc, new groff, and old groff all
> >> seem to do the same thing with the _flush_cache beginning:
> >>
> >>   GNU nroff (groff) version 1.18.1
> >>   nroff -mandoc foo.1 | hexdump -c
> >>   _  \b   _   f  \b   f   l  \b   l   u  \b
> >>
> >>   mandoc foo.1 | hexdump -c
> >>   _  \b   _   f  \b   f   l  \b   l   u  \b
> >>
> >>   GNU troff version 1.15
> >>   nroff -mandoc foo.1 | hexdump -c
> >>   _  \b   _   f  \b   f   l  \b   l   u  \b
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > hmm, and you do not see the issue i describe? what else could it be?
> > surely not my TERM setting if mandoc shows it one way and groff another.
> > 
> > what else?
> 
> Jason,
> 
> It could be groff acting upon TERM.  When I run this under a linux
> terminal, for example, the underscores are colourised like the `Fa'
> token (i.e., "underlined").  Do note that "_ \b _" is ambiguous: it
> could either mean an underlined underscore or a bold underscore.
> 
> (I ran the above in TERM=rxvt.)
> 

hmm. i use TERM=wsvt25. so do you think there is a bug in the term code,
or it's something else?

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