Re: [groff] PSPIC vs PDFPIC: adjust documentation to reality, or the reverse?

[Ted Harding]

[See at end ... ]
On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 18:05 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:57:19PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
> > To avoid making existing documents render incorrectly I propose to allow 
> > the 
> > existing behaviour to be selected. Adding this to the NEWS file:-
> > 
> > ============================================================================
> > PDFPIC has now been corrected, so the behaviour is the same whether you use 
> > the postscript or pdf drivers. However, this means that any documents which 
> > were written using the old behaviour will not be rendered correctly if 
> > using 
> > the pdf driver with the new version.
> > 
> > The change would mean that documents which relied on the previous behaviour 
> > are likely to have a gap underneath the image which was not there before. 
> > If 
> > you see this effect there are three ways you can restore the previous 
> > behaviour (listed in order of priority):-
> > 
> > A) Add the line ".nr PDFPIC_LEGACY 1" to the document before the first call 
> > to 
> > .PDFPIC.
> > 
> > B) If it is just a single document which exhibits this behaviour you can 
> > run 
> > groff adding "-rPDFPIC_LEGACY=1" to the command-line.
> 
> I don't have a specific name suggestion, and I'm aware that this is a
> bikeshed, but can I suggest a more explicit variable name?  Otherwise
> the next time some old behaviour needs to be switchably deprecated we're
> in for some confusion.
> 
> (In my third year in college, I lived in "New Court", built in 1825.)

[ ... therefore, along with Ralph Corderoy and Peter Schaffter,
  you constitute a Trinity ... ]