On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 03:03, Dave Kemper <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think some of the reforms you and Erik have been spitballing are > clear language improvements. My concern is that until such reforms > are implemented, the current .class method of "or"ing in new flags > should continue to work (and ideally would continue to work for at > least one release that does contain the reforms, to give users a > reasonable migration window). > I apologise for butting into this discussion at random when I haven't been following the thread closely at all, but catching the part about reforming the Roff language gave me an idea… Why doesn't Groff take a cue from Perl and introduce a `.use [program version/flavour]` directive that enables authors to opt into newer features and breaking changes that introduce compatibility/rendering issues with older documents? The directive need only affect the scope of the file it's used in (i.e., it's not merely a reheated compatibility-mode), so macro packages could be "modernised" but authors using them need not know or care about the newer syntax being used in files loaded elsewhere. (I'm aware of the innumerable foibles of Roff syntax and how many ways this suggestion can be shot down, so… fire away, Branden!)
