Re: [Groff] nop request

[Matthew Braun]

"T. Kurt Bond" <address@hidden> comments:
>Would `.always' or `.text' be clearer?
Yes.  Or ".pass", indicating that the text will be passed through
untouched.  Like other folks, I assumed that "nop" does nothing, except
swallow its arguments, and produce no output.  If it produces any
output, it's NOT doing "nothing", and "nop" is a misnomer.

>(Although I'm not really certain this needs to be in groff itself.)
I quite agree.  If it's sole purpose is syntactic sugar, perhaps it
belongs in a private macro file which can be .so'ed in.  IMHO, because
there's already a mechanism to perform this (.if 1), extending groff
itself with a 2nd method isn't necessary. 

                                        m@