Follow-up Comment #14, bug #65930 (group groff): [comment #4 comment #4:] > since the `@t` internal macro is called by the `$h` and `$f` > "API" macros, it's the redefiner's responsibility to cope with > the more troublesome vertical spacing issues that arise.
Agreed. But for someone with existing -me code, who has already addressed the
troublesome issues, I would hope a fix for this bug doesn't scuttle her
carefully crafted solution. Having never created multi-line titles myself, I
have neither a solid grasp of those issues, nor a good test for a regression.
> I therefore see no need to put the vanished verbiage back; the
> leading `$` in the macro names imply the needful.
Right, I was unclear here again: I was referring only to the example of what a
user might want a redefined $h or $f for, addressed in the parenthetical
"(e.g., multi-line)". I agree the rest of the sentence is redundant with the
general explanation of the leading $.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65930>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
