On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 17:33 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > So I ask the question of the group: > > > > Do we want to implement "backward compatibility" of > > undocumented things like the number register :p in > > the groff package? > > > > I vote no.
As do I. > Hmm. What to do in situations where the `inofficial' way was the only > choice? Exactly as you would in any other situation, where you found it necessary to exploit an undocumented feature; go ahead anyway, but prominently include a comment in the document, to the effect that: .\" This document makes gratuitous use of the undocumented `:p' .\" register, defined by the XYZ implementation of `mm'; it may .\" not be readily portable to other troff implementations. . .\" The equivalent, but also undocumented, feature in groff `mm' .\" is controlled by the `ft*nr' register; thus . . aln :p ft*nr . .\" should suffice, to allow groff to emulate this undocumented .\" register usage. Note that it's the `aln' request which is required here, and not `als' as suggested in a previous post. > I assume there wasn't any other, `official' possibility to reset the > footnote counter, right? Apparently not, but ... > It's a genuine troff mm-ism. E.g. we found out about it from the book > by Narain Gehani (of AT&T) "Document Formatting and Typesetting on the > UNIX System", ISBN 0 -9615336-0-9 (highly recommended, BTW). This may establish `prior art', but it doesn't constitute official documentation; there is no onus on groff, to replicate this undocumented feature of another troff implementation, and I agree with Mike -- it shouldn't do so. Regards, Keith. BTW, without intending any offence to our German speaking colleagues, there is no such word as `inofficial' in the English language. Several of you have used it recently; the word you intended is `unofficial'.
