Re: [idea] troff -Troff

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi Alex,

At 2024-02-16T19:28:51+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:49:52AM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > And so it is with the roff languages.  An arbitrary number of macro
> > expansions may have taken place.
> 
> Hmmm.  But maybe approximating by saying "the original equation had
> something like '5'" could decent enough?

Probably not, if I understand your use of "approximately".  :)

> It's not really what it was, but at least it means the same thing
> (hopefully).  Or by the moment you're about to produce the trout you
> don't have anything that can resemble valid roff(7) anymore?

Yes.  That's what I mean.

> > My own knowledge of it is far advanced over what it was 5 years ago,
> > but I do not feel equal to the task of scaling that mountain yet.
> > 
> > So I think this is unlikely to happen soon.
> 
> I have patience.  :)
> 
> I'll keep pushing you from time to time with NP-Hard and NP-Complete
> problems.

That's fine.  I resemble Bob the Angry Flower, and have a hard head.

https://www.angryflower.com/245.html

> > [2] ...the presentation of which in _The Unix Programming
> >     Environment_, my labored explanation is but a pale shadow.  I
> >     wish someone would update that book for modern times; the
> >     currents of history have been particularly cruel to its
> >     old-school lex and yacc usage, which is some of the most
> >     valuable material in it.
> 
> Talking of yacc, maybe you could have a look at a bugfix I wrote
> recently for some yacc code in shadow-utils.  Nobody involved in the
> project seems to understand it anymore.  :)
> 
> <https://github.com/shadow-maint/shadow/pull/952>

Ah, it appears that 15 hours ago, this issue was resolved with my
assistance, which is good because I couldn't have +1ed the patch anyway.

The syntax looks fine but I'd've needed to understand more of the
application-level context to make sense of things.

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature