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 o8R768pX030307 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:06:08 -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 7261D14F3B1 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:06:02 +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 6vW2NlWiKxhu for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:06:01 +0200 (CEST) X-KTH-Auth: kristaps [85.8.60.37] X-KTH-mail-from: kristaps@bsd.lv X-KTH-rcpt-to: discuss@mdocml.bsd.lv Received: from lappy.cust.alltele.se (h85-8-60-37.dynamic.se.alltele.net [85.8.60.37]) by smtp-2.sys.kth.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B63414F3A5 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:06:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4CA04258.3020908@bsd.lv> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:06:00 +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: Bl bullet. References: <4C9E2AAC.6060309@bsd.lv> <20100925221406.GF23359@iris.usta.de> In-Reply-To: <20100925221406.GF23359@iris.usta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> What the hell is with groff's `Bl -bullet'? >> "+\b+\bo\bo" makes no sense to me. > > I suspect some devices render (or rendered?) that as real bullet > and not just a bold 'o', by printing a bold '+' and a bold 'o' > in the same place. I can't confirm that, though; neither my > VGA glass console (TERM=vt220) nor my xterm (TERM=xterm) does so. > On both devices, it looks just the same as "o\bo". And i don't > have a wire matrix printer around right now. ;-) > >> Do we really need to preserve this behaviour, or can we just use >> o\bo as it is right now in the code? > > Well, it is certainly not critical, and i admit i can't provide > really good reasons for it. On the other hand, it is a gratuitious > difference. What does it cost fixing it? Or is there any downside > when changing to "+\b+\bo\bo"? For now, I'm going to just leave it as-is. The problem is that this introduces a naughty character: the interstitial \b. The "+\b+" is ok (bold "+"), as is the "o\bo", but the middle \b is not allowed. And I'd rather not lift the ASCII invariant from the low-level drivers for now. Kristaps -- To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv