hoh...@arcor.de wrote:
> > .ifx ... \{\
> > ...
> > .\}
> > .el .if ...
>
> A customer would know inherently that for
>
> .if x ... \{\
> ...
> .\}
> .el .if ...
The use should know if compatibility mode is on or not. I think few users
today know that once (lets name it) .iff and .if f was the same. The general
groff user may assume that long identifier mode is active. In compatibility
mode the new syntax can't be used.
> it is an "if", it is a special comparison and he has to look for it at
> the chapter for comparisons (3 facts out of the box). ".ifx" is not
> that clear. It's not clear, that is is an "if", nor what is special and
> wherefore he first have to go for the hole manual.
I don't understand you here. Do you talk about .ifx vs. .iff? Then name it
.iff. Or do you talk about that .iff and .if is used? It should be clear that
.iff expects a different condition syntax than .if.
Anyway users of macro packages (mom, me, mm, ms, man, mdoc etc.) should not
need conditional statements. So all that here is for very few users how design
macro packages. Do *they* really need all that comfort that goes beyond .iff?
I don't understand it.
Carsten
