From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [88.198.49.12]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0NHMrFe007963 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0NHMqT6045949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:22:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=spoerlein.net; s=dkim200908; t=1295803372; bh=OJbeqt9lPOjzm0knqtHDjOqazv1Y6zQBL4RL728N8YQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To; b=bszUiq9NhRfGjWVIXCBkXYJBvhtAKoevP/fVP8/Tze6UodrlEhpndVrZAneixvovD x+/LD203Eks5kJUGTwU8adK1g9KtLHaOnccJuRxUavOvJcQS1Cpy2GGuRQSSMjuD6G wQQ71rMOUIdRv+FzRafVYz3dZ5POVRPxFHteZCJU= Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:22:52 +0100 From: Ulrich Spoerlein To: Ingo Schwarze Cc: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: Bullets everywhere Message-ID: <20110123172251.GE65811@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <20110110221110.GJ23329@acme.spoerlein.net> <20110123144048.GB4205@iris.usta.de> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20110123144048.GB4205@iris.usta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Sun, 23.01.2011 at 15:40:48 +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Ulrich, > > Ulrich Spoerlein wrote on Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11:10PM +0100: > > > prompted by some gratuitous differences in groff vs mandoc output, I > > wanted to ask for the rationale here (if any). > > > > .Bl -bullet > > .It > > one > > .El > > > > will print the following raw output: > > > > mandoc: o^Ho one > > groff[1] -Tascii: +^H+^Ho^Ho one > > groff[1] -Tutf8: ·^H· one > > groff[2] -Tascii: ^[[1m+^Ho ^[[22mone > > > > [1] is groff 1.19.2 (the last GPLv2 release) > > [2] is groff 1.20.1 > > We don't do -Tutf8, so that part is not relevant. > > Regarding groff-1.20.1 (which i'm using as my reference groff, too), > you should always use > > /usr/local/bin/nroff -c -mandoc -Tascii > > which will produce "+\b+\bo\bo" just like groff-1.19.2 (though i > admit i never tried 1.19, i only use 1.15 and 1.20). > > Indeed, i have been regarding that difference as annoying for a long > time. It is one of the main sources of noise in automatic comparisons, > so it is a real hindrance when trying to find bugs, and even worse, > when making sure to prevent regressions. For example, fixing it > reduces the size of the /usr/src/bin diff from over 1000 to less > than 600 lines. > > Even if terminals capable of showing two glyphs on top of each other > are probably rare nowadays, so "+\b+\bo\bo" vs. "o\bo" will rarely > make a noticable difference for the user, i strongly feel like > committing the following diff, just for binary compatibility. > > At some point in the past, Kristaps voiced concerns that a similar > but less elegant diff i sent out might wreak havoc in the terminal > frontends because term.c / term_flushln() would rely on the fact > that backspace only occurs in the usual underline and bold sequences, > not as a standalone character. Actually, this is not an issue. > The only guarantee needed by term_flushln() is that you don't go > back more than you advanced, so the diff poses no risk. > Besides, the diff also works fine with term.c / encode(). > When processing "+\bo", the plus will be encoded, the backspace > passed through, and the circle encoded, just as we want it, > to produce "+\b+\bo\bo" or "_\b+\b_\bo". > > So, do you agree with this diff? > It survived an OpenBSD build, and the output looks good. Works for me. But there should be a small comment, explaining that this is for groff compat and won't do much on xterms and Co. Regards, Uli -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv