Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 06:31:34PM +0000:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> * line 1896, while (*form):
>> Testing char as if it were boolean seems dubious style to me;
>> "while (*form != '\0')" would seem clearer because it makes the
>> data type obvious on first sight.
> It's idiomatic in C to write just `foo' to test it against its `zero
> value' whether it's an int, pointer, etc.
You are right, coding styles differ on that. I noticed the style
to be inconsistent in this very function and gave a short explanation
why i suggested to stick to one of the styles already in use.
I don't feel strongly about it even though OpenBSD does consistently
encourage pointer == NULL and character == '\0' and integer == 0
everywhere and reserves !integer to int variables that are supposed
to represent only boolean values.
Let's see what Colin will do. :-)
[...]
> If I've a `bool b', I don't write `b != false' to hint that b is a bool.
Of course not. I think all coding styles will agree that "if (b)"
is fine if b is boolean.
[...]
> Getting back on topic, are we sure we want to deviate from GNU pic's
> current behaviour without checking historical norms of other pics?
>
> $ printf '%s\n' \
> .PS 'print sprintf("%.17g %.0f% % %%", 3.14, 42, 99)' .PE |
> > pic >/dev/null
> 3.1400000000000001 42% % %%
>
> Though that may seem odd to our modern C-standardised eyes, it's
> understandable in that if it isn't a valid %f, etc., format specifier
> then it's a literal percent sign.
$ printf '%s\n' \
.PS 'print sprintf("%.17g %.0f% % %%", 3.14, 42, 99)' .PE |
/usr/local/heirloom-doctools/bin/pic | grep -F 3.14
3.1400000000000001 42% %
$ printf '%s\n' \
.PS 'print sprintf("%.17g %.0f% % %%", 3.14, 42, 99)' .PE |
/usr/local/plan9/bin/pic | grep -F 3.14
3.1400000000000001 42% %
which both agree with what we currently have in git HEAD:
$ printf '%s\n' \
.PS 'print sprintf("%.17g %.0f% % %%", 3.14, 42, 99)' .PE |
/usr/local/bin/pic | grep -F 3.14
3.1400000000000001 42% %
Usually, both Heirloom doctools and Plan9 respect historical behaviour
quite well, so i don't feel like digging for historical implementations
right now.
So i don't think the change i committed goes against historical practice
but that it rather fixed a genuine groff bug.
> That example also happens to show GNU pic gives no warning of unused
> arguments.
That's a separate matter... As i said in another posting, i'm quite
sure doing a code review across the groff tree would reveal large
amounts of aspects that can be improved.
Yours,
Ingo
