Re: Fwd: preconv generates a good unicode escape but groff can't find special character

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Filip,

Filip Banak wrote on Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 11:12:25PM +0100:

> Well I am sorry if I caused any developer worries.

Don't worry, errare humanum est and getting help with problems
that seem mysterious and that people fail to solve on their own
even after trying hard is among the (many different) purposes
of this list.

> I thought I read that you could do comments like that, also vim
> highlighted it as a comment so I was confident that it was the
> right way. Well now I know better.

My personal opinion is that using syntax highlighting is a bad
idea in general and that one among the reasons is that it can
make it *harder* to spot errors rather than make it easier.
Of course, i'm aware that a majority of people disagrees with
this personal opinion and like syntax highlighting for reasons
i do not fully understand.

But i think the following lesson to learn from your example will
likely be uncontroversial:

  If you choose to use syntax highlighting, always assume that
  the highlighting is totally bogus and makes no sense whatsoever.
  Never, ever rely on syntax highlighting for any kind of syntax
  validation.

Personally, i would derive a corollary from the above, but that
might be controversial:

  Before you enable syntax highlighting for any particular
  language, always make sure that you have a very thorough
  understanding of the language, to prevent wrong decisions of
  the syntax highlighter - which are absolutely sure to occur
  sooner or later, in any syntax highlighter - from teaching
  you misconceptions about the syntax of the language.
  Never, ever use syntax highlighting while *learning* a
  new language.  To learn about syntax, use reference manuals
  and language specifications, not syntax highlighters.

Yours,
  Ingo