On 28/08/2021 17:14, Douglas McIlroy wrote: > A small anomaly. Consider > > .de . > .tm Hi > ,.. > ..
I'm guessing that the comma, before the first ".." is an unintended introduction? > The second .. emits "Hi". This fragment also emits "Hi": > > .de end end > .tm Hi > .end > > But this (with macro . not previously defined) > does not: > > .de . . > .tm Hi > .. Even if macro "." were previously defined, the latter should not emit "Hi". Footnote 16, in reference to ".de" and its variations, within the groff reference manual[1], explains this, (with an essentially similar example): during a macro definition, '..' is never handled as a call to '.', even if you say '.de foo .' explicitly. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/manual/groff.pdf (FWIW, I think I would have s/handled/interpreted/) -- Cheers, Keith
