> Joachim told me that in the original documentation of the AT&T > troff the addition > > ...but all processing ceases at the next page eject > > in the description of the `em' request is missing. He thus > suspects that this bug has been raised to be a feature; > instead of fixing it they just documented it.
That's a plausible explanation. The new Troff User's Manual says "The effect is almost as if the contents of xx had been at the end of the last file processed, ...", whereas an older version of the document says "The effect is the same as if ...", i.e., without the "almost". > What do you think about enabling this bizarre behaviour of > `em' only in compatibility mode? As already mentioned, I > can't think of any useful application. This would save us > from introducing the proposed `em1' request. I vote for this proposed solution.
