Re: [Groff] nop request

[Werner LEMBERG]

>     int main(int argc, char **argv[])
>     {
>         printf("hello world!\\n");
>     }
> 
> I much prefer `**' instead of a single `*' for dereferencing versus
> multiplication.  And a single backslash just doesn't stand out, hence
> `\\n' for the escape.
> 
> Of course, it jars a bit when others come to read it because it looks
> like C but isn't quite and any edits they make are often wrong
> initially.  But I've got used to it and like it.

To be honest: This is weird :-)  I've never seen that before.  But I
begin to understand why you like doubled backslashes...

> Yes, abnormal.

I suggest to stop arguing about normality...

> > My highest ideal is to be generic.  I prefer TeX to almost
> > everything else because it is available on virtually any platform.
> > The same is true for groff.  Using `\' is just a convention.  I
> > can imagine that people don't want to use groff in a traditional
> > way for some specific purpose.  Why shall we disallow this?
> 
> I'm not proposing disallowing it.  I'm saying that people that know
> enough to do this can probably cope with tmac.trace assuming it is
> still backslash.

Sorry, I don't understand what you want to say.  tmac.trace will fail
if the backslash character (for whatever reasons) is not the escape
character.  And there is no way to fix that without additional
commands.

> > Additionally, my greatest concern is not using another escape
> > character but to disable the escape mechanism to write code in a
> > fashion which I believe is easier to understand.
> 
> Do you not think that convention is also a strong aid in
> comprehending others code?

Code is more than backslashes, isn't it?

> The interface of mdoc isn't at issue; when the documentation is
> insufficient a lot of troff people will look at the macro code for
> the answer.  What can be a hard task will be made more difficult by
> having to follow your abnormal style.

I'll improve the documentation of mdoc also...


    Werner