[bug #56499] adjacent trap behavior undocumented and probably undesirable

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #56499 (project groff):

[comment #1 comment #1:]
> ...I believe _wrongly assume_ that there will be only one next
> trap to be sprung.

Interesting that this logic error seems to have been made independently in
both AT&T troff and groff.  (Plan 9 and Heirloom, I believe, both branched
from AT&T source code; groff did not.)

> The weird phenomenon of "active" traps hiding earlier-planted
> ones at the same position has a long pedigree.  We might need to
> retain it, even as weird as it is, for historical compatibility.

Sure, there's the fact that some coders may have relied on this behavior, but
there's also the fact that it's easy to document and understand, neither of
which is a property of the vertical-motion-quantum behavior.

Additionally, the last-trap-planted-wins behavior avoids the question of what
order multiple traps at the same position should be run in, or whether there's
even a guaranteed order.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?56499>

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