Re: [tz] Doubts about a typo fix

["G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

At 2022-11-25T19:50:14-0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2022-11-25 19:20, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > You have to be very careful with the combination of \f(CW and \fP on
> > Solaris 10 nroff
> 
> That should be OK, as \f(CW - which is now \f(CR - is used only if
> \n(.g is nonzero, i.e., only if it's groff and not traditional troff.

Just for precision's sake, the .g register interpolating a true value
means (by convention) that an implementation is claiming support for
groff extensions.

This happens with Heirloom Doctools troff, for instance, if one gives it
the "-mg" option.  (There are other ways to switch on its "groff mode".)

Also, to reiterate, "CW" as a font name is not a groff extension; it has
some history in Documenter's Workbench troff and I think it may have
appeared in Research Unix troff as well in the 1980s, but I don't have
convincing evidence of this, just educated guesses based on man(7) and
ms(7) man pages from that era.  If I had sources for Research Unix
V8-V10 I'd be a happy guy.

> I toyed with using \f[CW] instead of \f(CW to underscore that it's
> groff-specific. However, that might be overkill given the number of
> non-*roff programs that read these files.

In my opinion that's not necessary, and implies too much.

Regards,
Branden

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]