Re: roff.c question

[Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>]

Hi Kristaps,

Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:17:55PM +0100:
> Ingo wrote:

>> 2) We should implement some kind of stack limit
>>    and just bail out.
>>
>> OK to commit the following patch, too?

> Ingo, this is fine by me---conditional upon (1) making the variable
> be part of struct roff

Hmmm, that doesn't work, struct roff is defined locally in roff.c,
so in main.c it has incomplete type.

> and not static,

But that part does work, i have just made it a member of
struct curparse.

> and (2) stating the existence of a limit in roff.7.

Done, in all brevity.

> I realise this is putting a lot of technical
> detail in roff.7 (as per last patch response, too)

Well, the roff language is full of obscure technicalities,
so we can't help that.  Hopefully, manual authors will rarely
need information from roff(7) and get away with mdoc(7).

> but I'm really, really sick of groff's crappy, undocumented
> behaviour and would rather too much than too little.
> 
> Can you pop an entry into the TODO to the extent that more rigorous
> checking of looping constructs should be enacted?

Done.

Yours,
  Ingo
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv