On 13-Jul-11 21:07:22, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
>> I have come across a very strage situation in which
>> the behaviour of groff seems to depend on:
>>
>> a. whether it happens in a diversion or not and
>> b. the presence of a comment.
>
>
> Multiline conditionals are a bit tricky.
> The following conditionals should work:
>
> .if condition stuff
>
> .if condition \
> stuff
>
> .if condition \{stuff\}
>
> .if condition \{\
> stuff\}
>
> .if condition \{\
> stuff
> more stuff\}
>
> .if condition \{\
> stuff
> more stuff
> .\}
>
> .if condition \{.\" comment
> stuff
> more stuff
> .\}
>
> Note the "dot" version of the comment in the last example.
It also works (in Anton's example) without the dot, as in:
.de QS
. nr oldVPos \\n[.d]
. if (2=2) \{\"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
' nf
. \}
. nr ofs (u;\\n[oldVPos]-\\n[.d])
. ie (\\n[ofs]=0) .tm \\n+[tn]. Test passed.
. el .tm \\n+[tn]. Test not passed: Offset = \\n[ofs]
. di quot
..
.
.nr tn 0 1
.QS
.QS
.QS
.di
.di
.di
It seems to be the space (with or without the following comment)
which causes the problem.
AND it works with a dotless comment on the following line, with
or without the "|" following "\{:
. if (2=2) \{\
\"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
' nf
. \}
. if (2=2) \{
\"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
' nf
. \}
(The trailing "\" is not essential).
I agree that multiline conditionals are a bit tricky!
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.hard...@wlandres.net>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 13-Jul-11 Time: 22:33:58
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
