Re: [Groff] surprise, surprise

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Werner,

>   . In compatible mode, stay with the current behaviour as shown
>     above.

Presumably, that means the groff deviations from Unix troff behaviour
still exist?

>   . In non-compatible mode, the requests \f, \H, \R, \s, and \S are
>     now grouped as `transparent escapes'; starting a line with one of
>     them no longer preserves the beginning-of-line flag.

What perspective was used for the terminology?  It seems to me that \f,
etc., have been made opaque, not transparent, in that they clear the
bol flag and therefore have a side-effect.  I'm not saying it's wrong
to call them transparent, I'd just like to know the reasoning as an
aide memoir.

Is it really necessary to deviate groff from troff in this way?  It's
an extra thing to document, and worse, an extra thing to be read and
understood by everybody.  More complexity in the code, etc.  Why not
just leave well alone and fix the troff incompatibilities.  It's not as
if it was biting a new user every week.

It seems as if groff is a bit too keen to fix troff's perceived faults
without weighing up the associated costs.


Ralph.