Agreed.
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 09:11:50PM -0400, Mike Bianchi wrote:
> Bjarni,
> Nice, tight analysis and proposed solutions. Thank you.
> Mike Bianchi
>
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:58:01PM +0000, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > 1) The missing part is information.
> > Solution:
> > a) Provide a message (warning, error), if "\snn" is in the input.
> > b) Augment the documentation to tell the readers,
> > that "\snn" is deprecated, obsolete, out of date, etc.
> > and what they should use instead.
> >
> > 2) About the "\snn" problem.
> > The current executing code is not the problem.
> > The current existing roff-files are not the problem.
> > The problem is the people who (still, will) write "\snn"
> > instead of "\s(nn" (portability) or "\s[nn]" (for "groff" and
> > compatibles).
>
> snip
>
> > 3) Other things.
> > a) A missing part of messages is the name of the culprit,
> > in this case the s-escape (\s).
> > Solution: Provide the name ("\\s escape" is already used once in the
> > subroutine).
> > b) Adding details of the argument of the escape in messages is not
> > necessary.
> > c) Adding specific code to report specific syntax errors is not
> > necessary.
>
> snip
>
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com
http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
