Re: Parsing of .Ex with -std argument

[Abhinav Upadhyay <er.abhinav.upadhyay@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de> wrote:
> Hi Abhinav,
>
> sorry for not answering this one in a timely fashion.
> I was occupied with other matters back then and forgot
> to send a preliminary answer.

No problem, thanks for resolving it :)

>
> Abhinav Upadhyay wrote on Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:13:00PM +0530:
>
>> I'm having issues parsing man pages which use the .Ex macro in the
>> EXIT STATUS section. For example mandoc -Ttree shows following output
>> for a man page using it:
>>
>> Sh (block) *138:2
>>   Sh (head) 138:2
>>       EXIT STATUS (text) 138:5
>>   Sh (body) 138:2
>>       Ex (elem) -std *139:2
>>           nbperf (text) 139:2
>>
>> This is causing makemandb(8) (NetBSD's indexing tool) parse the EXIT
>> STATUS section just as "nbperf" instead of the complete expanded text.
>
> This was a symptom of a more general problem.  The text production
> macros - .At, .Bsx, .Bx, .Ex, .Fx, .Lb, .Nx, .Ox, .Rv, .St, .Ux
> and the obsolete .Bt and .Ud - handled their task inconsistently.
> Some produced text at the validation stage and added it to the
> syntax tree, notably .Lb and .St.  Others did little at the
> validation stage and left text production to the formatters,
> notably .Ex and .Rv.  Both approaches had downsides.  Text
> production at the validation stage obscured the content of the
> original source document, making it impossible to recover the source
> from the finalized syntax tree.  Text production in the formatters
> implied code duplication and the problem you describe for tools
> using the library.
>
> I now committed substantial changes cleaning this up, introducing
> a flag NODE_NOPRT such that content that is required in the source
> code but not intended to be printed can remain in the tree, for
> example the argument of .St, solving the first problem, and introducing
> a flag NODE_NOSRC such that generated content not contained in the
> source document can be marked, allowing to solve the second problem
> and do text generation at the validation stage for all macros, even
> for .Ex and .Rv.  This work required a number of commits; i'm
> appending the commit message of the final one at the end.
>
> The resulting changes will be in mandoc-1.13.5 and in mandoc-1.14.x
> when released.

This is pretty awesome, any clues about when will 1.13.5 or 1.14.x come out?

Regards
Abhinav
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv