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 o8PLP9an016650 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:25:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (1000@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by kerhand.co.uk (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 9htA99At for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:24:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:24:43 +0059 From: Jason McIntyre To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: .Fn _* issue Message-ID: <20100925212507.GM25298@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> <20100925174753.GF25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <4C9E58FF.5060708@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: <4C9E58FF.5060708@bsd.lv> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:18:07PM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote: > > > > hmm. i use TERM=wsvt25. so do you think there is a bug in the term code, > > or it's something else? > > There's nothing mandoc can do about it: the "_" character produces the > same escape sequence when it's underlined as when it's bold ("_\b_"). I > observe that, in this situation, the "underline" style has precedence > (by colouring on the "linux" terminal). so why groff displays "correctly" and mandoc not? the terminal interprets those sequences? and i should just accept that there's a bit screw up? (not arguing, just clueless) jmc -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv