> Hmmm, actually I don't know. I guess a long time ago I just > noticed the similarity and simply attributed it to being the > result of a corresponding similar implementation.
It is likely that the implementation is correct. IMHO it would be better if there had been a note in the documentation (also already in CSTR54). At least this behaviour is not clear to me from reading the specification alone. I did notice it because AT&T nroff differs from ditroff and groff regarding \L (also regarding \v is I checked right now). But when \v behaves wrong in AT&T nroff (motion is not limited to a line) it is likely that also \L has the same bug and that ditroff and groff are correct.
