Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > gnu.groff.bug > #1625

[bug #57592] [PATCH] tmac/<files containing a ".nx" request>: Add a warning

From "G. Branden Robinson" <INVALID.NOREPLY@gnu.org>
Newsgroups gnu.groff.bug
Subject [bug #57592] [PATCH] tmac/<files containing a ".nx" request>: Add a warning
Date 2020-01-16 01:06 -0500
Message-ID <mailman.2686.1579154811.1979.bug-groff@gnu.org> (permalink)
References <20200113-183655.sv93188.51644@savannah.gnu.org> <20200114-121803.sv97361.68437@savannah.gnu.org> <20200115-033545.sv108747.2685@savannah.gnu.org> <20200115-034311.sv108747.17875@savannah.gnu.org> <20200116-060641.sv108747.66365@savannah.gnu.org>

Show all headers | View raw


Follow-up Comment #4, bug #57592 (project groff):

To be fair to Bjarni, he wasn't requesting a change in the semantics of `.nx`,
but asking us to add include guards to some of the macro packages.

But as Ingo pointed out, the macro files should be written idempotently. 
Having them skip to the next file of input when a symbol (string, macro,
diversion, request) that the package defines is already defined is a pretty
conventional way to do this and I do not think requires a warning.

I regret my lack of clarity in characterizing my objection earlier.  In fact I
think our "include guards" could be improved by keying of a simple that is
_only_ there for the purpose of detecting multiple inclusion.

But better still would be to simply have "reentrant" macro packages. :P

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57592>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/

Back to gnu.groff.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar


Thread

[bug #57592] [PATCH] tmac/<files containing a ".nx" request>: Add a warning "G. Branden Robinson" <INVALID.NOREPLY@gnu.org> - 2020-01-16 01:06 -0500

csiph-web