Hi Alexis, you are always free to rename a copy of the macro sources and modify it to your heart's content --- for your personal use.
Insofar, the source invites for editing, and that is definitely welcome. If, for your own convenience only, you modify the groff macro source in your local system, that's perfectly fine. However, if your edit modifies a *public* source that everybody relies on, the problems begin. The groff user community expects a *defined* behaviour from a given macro or set of macros, and anything that behaves differently should be named differently. That includes the use case that you want to reproduce documents from earlier sources expecting identical results, which is not guaranteed anymore if metrics are changed. The changes may not, or may, affect your documents, but you cannot be sure without direct comparison, and if you do not know where to search for the origin of the changes it is hard to undo these changes. Another possibility is that groff is used for automated toolchains of mass production of documents, and everything from preprinted company stationary (coloured backgrounds? patterns? company logos?) to envelope windows might be affected. You do not want to introduce problems because you updated your groff version, with measures different from a previous version. Compare it to the files containing spelling variants of hyphenation patterns: traditional vs. new German hyphenation rules, British vs. American English hyphenation rules etc., all differences are expressed in files with different names. The boilerplate header of the TeX macro set plain.tex by Donald Knuth says it: % This is the plain TeX format that's described in The TeXbook. % N.B.: A version number is defined at the very end of this file; % please change that number whenever the file is modified! % And don't modify the file unless you change its name: % Everybody's "plain.tex" file should be the same, worldwide. % Unlimited copying and redistribution of this file are permitted as long % as this file is not modified. Modifications are permitted, but only if % the resulting file is not named plain.tex.[1] Regarding your problem, I suggest you solicit more user feedback in order to find out how far your proposed changes meet a user requirement. You can always post a macro file with all necessary adaptations here. Best regards, Oliver. [1] /usr/local/texlive/2023/texmf-dist/tex/plain/base/plain.tex My personal thought: wouldn't it be a good idea to include a similar text with the groff macros? On 10/01/2024 15:40, Alexis wrote:
Hi Oliver, thank you for the suggesting to put my proposed modifications in a local macro and source that in my documents. What are (technical) reasons against the change that you can think of? So if the "transparent source is not an invitation to edit", as you say, is it only shared to serve as a reference? And what is preferred procedure to propose a change to groff if it's not through patches to this list? Grüße vom Landwehrkanal Alexis
-- Dr. Oliver Corff mailto:oliver.co...@email.de
