Hello troffers!
English is not my native language, so please take this into account.
In the current edition of groff.texinfo (Edition 1.21, Winter 2010) it reads
unter section '5.21 Writing Macros':
"The optional second argument to de changes this to a macro to ‘.end’."
For me this sen
More than a half year ago you wrote:
>> +Attempting to insert the @samp{!} operator
>> +within the expression results in a
>> +@samp{numeric expression expected} warning. This
>> +maintains bug-compatibility
>> +with old versions of @code{troff}.
>
> It is not a bug that it works that way in tr
> In the man page for groff_www, in the description of the command
> .HTML, the following example is given:
>
> .de BGIMG
> . HTML
> ..
>
> Should not the second line read instead:
>
> . HTML
>
> I.e., with two backslashes?
You are right. Fixed in CVS. Sorry for the long delay.
> > Is there any reason why changing the font should not
> > change the baseline also ?
>
> Yes. Simple example: assume you want to set just a few words in
> a smaller size, but this short sequence of words happens to wrap
> at the end of the line. With which baseline spacing should
> the lin
