> > I would have no problem with a special groff request > > with a new name. But one can't change .ul. > > I'm not sure Bernd was suggesting .ul change in troff to > underline. Even if he was, it wouldn't be accepted so > don't fret. :-)
Actually, why not? I'd like to argue that request names carry with them an "implied contract" as to their function, and "ul" stands for underline, so that's what it should be used for. It's not unreasonable to assume that the "I say underline but actually mean italic" was a hack already at the time troff was introduced, in order to make older nroff documents (that *did* use underlining) look prettier on the typesetter. If this (mis)feature is really needed for older documents, then that's what we have compatibility mode for. I'm hoping nobody actually uses "ul" for italic in this enlightened age (where we can say "ft" instead), so it would again be free for its real purpose.
