From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id fc2168bd for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 21:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C762695198; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:22:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EE99517D; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:22:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 65F1B9517E; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:21:56 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (mail.cs.dartmouth.edu [129.170.212.100]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 987009517D for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:21:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (tahoe.cs.dartmouth.edu [129.170.212.20]) by mail.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x2FLLrjG026835 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:21:53 -0400 Received: from tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (8.15.2/8.14.3) with ESMTP id x2FLLrwT084446 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:21:53 -0400 Received: (from doug@localhost) by tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x2FLLrwW084445 for tuhs@tuhs.org; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:21:53 -0400 From: Doug McIlroy Message-Id: <201903152121.x2FLLrwW084445@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:21:53 -0400 To: tuhs@tuhs.org User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [TUHS] [patch] do not strip mdoc macros X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" >> But sed, awk, perl, python, ... lex and parse once into an AST or >> bytecode, removing the recurring cost of comments, etc. that impact >> groff. So I don't think it's an even comparison. > > Of course it's a valid comparison. Which sed or awk or shell script is > distributed in a stripped/compressed form? Do they store their AST > somewhere, so as to avoid recompilation? They do not. Just as > with groff, every parse starts anew. Comments inside of a macro definition get scanned each time it's called. This justifies the first paragraph above. In the wild, almost all comments occur outside macro definitions. This justifies the second. Thus comments are harmless in practice. Doug