[bug #61683] [me] either document $r and $R registers or rename them

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #61683 (project groff):

[comment #0 original submission:]
> Or maybe someone will be able to locate a use case.

If that sideways glance was in my direction, I don't have one.  I had never
spotted this register in the source, and can't think how to use it now that I
know about it.  Maybe it's some experimental dead end Eric was pursuing in the
'70s that's since become ossified.

On the other hand, unless you plan to repurpose the registers for something
else, leaving them as-is ensures they'll continue to work for anyone who _is_
using them but not following groff discussion channels.  I've been known to
exploit undocumented -me internals on occasion to fiddle with something for
which there's no approved mechanism, under the assumption that -me internals
in the 21st century are largely unchanging.  Worth a code comment to note the
anomalous name, but beyond that perhaps doesn't warrant a change.

(If your itchy refactoring finger needs an outlet, I'd look at the ?k
register, which is set in multiple places but appears to be never used -- at
least under that name, though because the language lets you build register
names on the fly, a simple code examination is insufficient to determine
this.)

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61683>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/