comment #5:

> the added comment section lists -p as one of the options nroff
> doesn't support, despite nroff supporting this option

Remedied in commit 2c9186054.

The modified comment weakens the case, I think, for rejecting -g, -G, and -j.  They're switches of convenience, giving the user an easier way to invoke the preprocessors if desired, and fewer differences to have to remember between a troff and an nroff command.  A user who wants to run those preprocessors, even in nroff mode, will grumble a little if their accustomed troff command line fails to work and they have to construct a pipeline.  A user who doesn't want to run them can just omit the switches.  So it helps some users and doesn't hinder the rest.

At 2024-11-12T11:37:27-0500, Dave wrote:

> Follow-up Comment #3, bug #64450 (group groff):
>
> comment #2:
> > I very recently decided against that.
> >
> > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=78394f9f5bbf22f7505c751c122f5b9c5f174073
>
> That commit adds some flags to nroff, but is silent on why others were
> decided against.
>
> It would add a bit of convenience for users to be able to use largely
> the same command-line invocation, changing only the first letter of
> the *roff command.  The grn, grap, and chem preprocessors may not
> render well in nroff (I've never used them), but surely subpar
> rendering is preferable to skipping the preprocessing entirely.
>
> As comment #1 says, these flags are low priority, but what's the
> rationale for rejecting them outright?

It's in the commit's diff.

+  # groff(1) options we don't support:
+  #
+  # -e
+  # -s because of historical clash in meaning.
+  # -f because terminal devices don't support font families.
+  # -g
+  # -G
+  # -j
+  # -p because terminals don't do graphics.  (Some do, but grotty(1)
+  #    does not produce ReGIS or Sixel output.)
+  # -l
+  # -L because terminal output is not suitable for a print spooler.
+  # -N because we don't support -e.
+  # -X because gxditview(1) doesn't support terminal documents (why?).

comment #1:

> nroff preprocessor coverage can be expanded even without reclamation: the letters -g, -G, and -j are unused, and they respectively invoke the grn, grap, and chem preprocessors in groff.

I very recently decided against that.

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=78394f9f5bbf22f7505c751c122f5b9c5f174073

I think this would be cleaner, and AT&T-descended nroff is nearly dead.

Shop this idea on the list.