Re: translating defined glyphs: docs vs reality

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi Dave and Tadziu,

At 2020-07-17T10:58:40+0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> > .char \[red-c] \m[red]c\m[]
> > .char \[slashed-o] \[/o]
> > red-c is \[red-c]; slashed-o is \[slashed-o]
> > .br
> > .tr c\[red-c]o\[slashed-o]
> > bock
> > 
> > Of these two new glyphs defined with .char, .tr only
> > recognizes \[slashed-o].  The other generates the warning
> > "7: warning: can't find special character `red-c'" (even
> > though groff found it just fine when calling it directly
> > via that name).
> 
> It may be because you're defining c in terms of itself,
> so you get a (non-terminating) recursive mapping.
> With another character it works:
> 
>   .tr k\[red-c]o\[slashed-o]
>   bock
> 
> It also works if you define "red-c" not in terms of "c",
> but the character encoding number:
> 
>   .char \[red-c] \m[red]\N'99'\m[]
>   bock

Hmm, yes.  I wonder if it's possible to slip in an alternative
diagnostic that complains about the infinite recursion; the existing one
was clearly not suggestive of the problem.

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature