From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-1.sys.kth.se (smtp-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.175]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8PKIIY4028412 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) by smtp-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B9315795F for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:18:12 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at kth.se Received: from smtp-1.sys.kth.se ([130.237.32.175]) by mailscan-1.sys.kth.se (mailscan-1.sys.kth.se [130.237.32.91]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id N9wxrW9L3tMz for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:18:09 +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-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C171558ED for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:18:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C9E58FF.5060708@bsd.lv> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:18:07 +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> <4C9E1911.4000506@bsd.lv> <20100925174753.GF25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100925174753.GF25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> 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? 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). -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv