[bug #59795] interaction of .na and '.ad l' documented incorrectly

[G. Branden Robinson]

Follow-up Comment #15, bug #59795 (project groff):

[comment #14 comment #14:]
> [comment #13 comment #13:]
> > My brain screams for orthogonality, and James Clark just didn't provide it
in \n[.j].
> 
> Is there any reason his .j values must be preserved, given that
> * the documentation (now) states, "The value of '.j' ... is an
implementation detail and should not be relied upon as a programmer's
interface," and
> * no mapping of adjustment modes to .j values has ever been documented, so
it's not something document authors should have been relying on even before
this warning was spelled out
> ?

No, no reason.  If we were doing "next-generation adjustment control" to go
along with "next-generation hyphenation control" (bug #55070), then I'd
propose splitting out enablement status into a separate register (perhaps
\n[.ad] or \n[.adjust]), preserving the mode-selection semantics of .j if
possible.

This isn't _merely_ a matter of preference or design biases on my part; _if_
we ever get support for right-to-left languages, then the difference between
`.na` and `.ad l` could become much more relevant and evident.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?59795>

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