Re: man(7) .EE vertical spacing regression

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi Ingo,

At 2022-08-19T17:42:22+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> the following commit caused a regression:
> 
>   commit 15f8188656ef0ebed797eb5981b012b590fc77ad
>   Author: G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com>
>   Date:   Wed Feb 16 19:49:58 2022 +1100
> 
>     [man]: Refactor `EX` and `EE` macros.
[...]
> As a regression fix patch, i intentionally kept the patch minimal
> for review.  If you want, feel free to emit diagnostics in these
> cases, which is likely easy.
> 
> i don't think it would make sense to support nesting of .EX blocks,
> both because use cases for .EX do not require nesting and because
> man(7) supports nesting for very few block macros anyway (.RS being
> the notable exception).
> 
> What do you think?

This is a good catch--thank you!

> Do you want to polish and commit it, or should i push it?

I'll take care of it; an analogous fix needs to be made to the fallback
implementations for non-groffs in an-ext.tmac.

> After doing another "git pull", the number of new regression
> failures in the mandoc test suite just went up from about half a
> dozen to thirty-seven.  Most of those are probably due to intentional
> changes in groff of vertical spacing around tbl(1) blocks.  Still,
> i'll have to check whether these changes indeed *all* make sense.

I sure hope so--it was a lot of work to get the observability of
tbl/roff interactions where I wanted it, not to mention that I needed to
learn more about tbl than I ever thought I would need to know.

> So we are not exactly getting closer to a stable state that might
> be good enough for release.  Then again, if we have given up hope of
> releasing any time soon, that might not be a problem...

I feel nothing but unease about this right now.  :-|

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature