On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:57:06PM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote: > 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. >
I'm with Gunnar on this: I don't much care (especially since I don't use -mm). In general, I am *very* much in favor of backward compatibility, but as others have pointed out, the feature was undocumented, so anyone using it is probably prepared to deal with it's unportability. > > 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. > If it were me, I'd do exacted as Keith suggests here and fix it up in the files that are affected. jcs
