From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-2.sys.kth.se (smtp-2.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.160]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8PFjTXr026810 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7DA14F366 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:45:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se Received: from smtp-2.sys.kth.se ([130.237.32.160]) by mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RcrTdx8zSspB for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:45:22 +0200 (CEST) X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [193.10.49.5] X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv X-KTH-rcpt-to: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Received: from [172.16.18.84] (unknown [193.10.49.5]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F64B14F130 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:45:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C9E1911.4000506@bsd.lv> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:45:21 +0200 From: Kristaps Dzonsons User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100329) X-Mailinglist: mdocml-discuss Reply-To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: .Fn _* issue References: <20100925063547.GB14869@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> <4C9E13FE.2010001@bsd.lv> <20100925153525.GD25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100925153525.GD25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> 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.) Kristaps -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv