> Perhaps an additional sentence along the lines of "If adjusting is
> active, issuing .ad with no argument causes no change in the
> adjustment mode" would clarify this. (Or perhaps I'm the only one
> who had trouble following it as it reads now.)
Here's the added text to the CVS repository:
Using `ad' without argument is the same as saying `.ad \[.j]'. In
particular, `gtroff' adjusts lines in the same way it did before
adjusting was deactivated (with a call to `na', say). For
example, this input code
.de AD
. br
. ad \\$1
..
.
.de NA
. br
. na
..
.
textA
.AD r
.nr ad \n[.j]
textB
.AD c
textC
.NA
textD
.AD \" back to centering
textE
.AD \n[ad] \" back to right justifying
textF
produces the following output:
textA
textB
textC
textD
textE
textF
> I have to wonder why .ad works this way. It seems the reversion
> action familiar from other requests would be a more useful behavior
> in the case of calling .ad with no argument while already in
> adjustment mode. But I suppose changing it now brings up
> back-compatibility issues in existing documents.
I suspect it is meant to have an easy sequence to do `.ad/.na/.ad'.
However, the current behaviour is certainly present in the old AT&T
troff also, so no chance to change it.
Werner
