Hi Alex, At 2025-09-07T09:05:28+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 10:02:05PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > I was going to replace some unmatched double quote as argument to a > > man(7) macro, which was used as a literal double quote in the > > output, by the more readable (less ambiguous in source code) \[dq]. > > > > However, I've realized that groff(1) seems to treat them slightly > > differently. Is this intentional, or a bug? > > Ping. Here's a small reproducer: [...] > mandoc(1) does the right thing, but groff(1) acts weirdly.
I proposed a resolving change to the groff mailing list a couple of weeks ago... https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2025-08/msg00028.html ...and filed a Savannah ticket for it. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67474 I've been waiting to see what, if any, further feedback I get on my proposal. As it's a relatively minor change, less of a change even than the recent Savannah #67309, which I gave about a month to draw comment, it doesn't need as much time for feedback solicitation. (My bet is that we've heard from everyone who has anything to say.) So, barring a surprise, you can likely expect the fix in a push in the next week or so. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
