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 o8PLTReO018212 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:29:27 -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 6B7C115795F for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:29:21 +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 pWlkFpHWQ2D4 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:29:19 +0200 (CEST) X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [85.8.60.24] X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv X-KTH-rcpt-to: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Received: from lappy.cust.alltele.se (h85-8-60-24.dynamic.se.alltele.net [85.8.60.24]) by smtp-1.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81495154137 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:29:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C9E69C3.2050009@bsd.lv> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:29:39 +0200 From: Kristaps Dzonsons User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20100318) 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> <4C9E58FF.5060708@bsd.lv> <20100925212507.GM25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20100925212507.GM25298@bramka.kerhand.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jason McIntyre wrote: > 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) Can you produce a hexdump of the escape sequence groff uses for the offending phrase? I couldn't find any difference in groff and mandoc output. -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv