Re: [Groff] condition: OR of two string comparisons

[hohe72]

Carsten Kunze <address@hidden> wrote (Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:00:55
+0100 (CET)):
> address@hidden wrote:
> 
> > > .ifx ... \{\
> > > ...
> > > .\}
> > > .el .if ...
> > 
> > A customer would know inherently that for
> > 
> > .if x ... \{\
> > ...
> > .\}
> > .el .if ...
> 
> The use should know if compatibility mode is on or not.  I think few
> users today know that once (lets name it) .iff and .if f was the

Is this a standard? (.ifg == .if g, .ifq == .if q, ..)
.iff doesn't exists, doesn't it?
.if o and .ifo isn't implemented neither.    ??

Long identifiers (.ifx) are a generally used syntax to show that it
is not original AT&T?

> same.  The general groff user may assume that long identifier mode is
> active.  In compatibility mode the new syntax can't be used.
> 
> > it is an "if", it is a special comparison and he has to look for it
> > at the chapter for comparisons (3 facts out of the box). ".ifx" is
> > not that clear. It's not clear, that is is an "if", nor what is
> > special and wherefore he first have to go for the hole manual.
> 
> I don't understand you here.  Do you talk about .ifx vs. .iff?  Then

.if x  versu  .ifx

> name it .iff.  Or do you talk about that .iff and .if is used?  It
> should be clear that .iff expects a different condition syntax
> than .if.

It should? By what?

For instance:

.pn   Next page number N.
.pnr  Print the names and contents of all currently defined number
      registers on stderr.

is not that clear. So one will not stringently expect that .if
and .ifx is of the same class of requests. But that is evident for
.if x and .if.

> Anyway users of macro packages (mom, me, mm, ms, man, mdoc etc.)
> should not need conditional statements.  So all that here is for very
> few users how design macro packages.  Do *they* really need all that
> comfort that goes beyond .iff?  I don't understand it.

Despite you don't support your claims with evidence, this is free
software, don't have to tell me what to do, reading the thread shows
otherwise and at least, you are discriminating me!

Holger