Re: groff/-mandoc replacement (OT)

[Alan Barrett <apb%cequrux.com@localhost>]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, der Mouse wrote:
> > Using .bL here, you get correct output now (also at the expense of
> > conceptually incorrect input),
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with the parenthesis here.  The input is incorrect
> only in that it uses a non-mdoc macro.  I consider this substantially
> less incorrect than using an mdoc macro in a way inappropriate for the
> markup it defines (which is what I see .Pp as here).

My statement was based on the premise that the correct place for the
blank line is in the automatically generated output from the list
macros, not in an explicit .Pp or .bL.  In this respect, both .Pp and
.bL are conceptually incorrect.

> True.  I would prefer to build a .bL that generates a collapsing blank
> line more or less the same way .Pp does.  But I'm not competent to do
> that.  If someone does (and the result isn't too horribly long), I'd
> cheerfully replace my .bL implementations with it.

Why not simply have your macro call .Pp, or the groff-specific
".paragraph" that .Pp calls?

--apb (Alan Barrett)