Hi Ingo, At 2022-08-19T17:42:22+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > the following commit caused a regression: > > commit 15f8188656ef0ebed797eb5981b012b590fc77ad > Author: G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> > Date: Wed Feb 16 19:49:58 2022 +1100 > > [man]: Refactor `EX` and `EE` macros. [...] > As a regression fix patch, i intentionally kept the patch minimal > for review. If you want, feel free to emit diagnostics in these > cases, which is likely easy. > > i don't think it would make sense to support nesting of .EX blocks, > both because use cases for .EX do not require nesting and because > man(7) supports nesting for very few block macros anyway (.RS being > the notable exception). > > What do you think?
This is a good catch--thank you! > Do you want to polish and commit it, or should i push it? I'll take care of it; an analogous fix needs to be made to the fallback implementations for non-groffs in an-ext.tmac. > After doing another "git pull", the number of new regression > failures in the mandoc test suite just went up from about half a > dozen to thirty-seven. Most of those are probably due to intentional > changes in groff of vertical spacing around tbl(1) blocks. Still, > i'll have to check whether these changes indeed *all* make sense. I sure hope so--it was a lot of work to get the observability of tbl/roff interactions where I wanted it, not to mention that I needed to learn more about tbl than I ever thought I would need to know. > So we are not exactly getting closer to a stable state that might > be good enough for release. Then again, if we have given up hope of > releasing any time soon, that might not be a problem... I feel nothing but unease about this right now. :-| Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
