RE: [Groff] nop request

[Ted Harding]

Hi All,

On 02-Sep-00 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> I've now implemented a `.nop' request which is the same as `.if 1':
> 
> .if t \{
> .  nop Hallo!
> .\}

Having at first been a bit puzzled by the above I think the subsequent
exchange has clarified it. If I understand right, Werner's ".nop" is
really "the request that isn't there", i.e.

  .nop any_stuff

is equivalent to

  any_stuff

Now I can follow Werner's motive, that something like this can help
make the layout more legible.

However, I wish it wasn't called "nop", which for me, by long
tradition (going back to days of programming microprocessors),
means "do nothing [but possibly take some time to do it]",
and this was why I was puzzled to start with.

Also, from time to time I use a definition

  .de nop
  ..

as in

  .blm nop

and the like, so calling Werner's innovation "nop" clashes with that.

Furthermore, look in tmac.s:

  .de @not-implemented
  address@hidden sorry, \\$0 not implemented
  .als \\$0 @nop
  ..
  .als TM @not-implemented
  .als CT @not-implemented
  .de @nop
  ..

(and elsewhere).

Granted "@nop" is not the same as "nop", but it's close enough
to cause confusion.

So, while I can see the point of Werner's proposal, I think it would
be a very good idea to call it something else. Maybe ".pad"? I don't
have a clearly good suggestion for the name.

Finally, I think the interpretation as 'equivalent to ".if 1"' is not
obvious: does it mean you can use

  .nop \{Some input
  and some more input
  .\}

If not, then is it not equivalent to

  .de nop
  \\$*
  ..

??

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 284 7749
Date: 04-Sep-00                                       Time: 09:51:32
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------