Re: Proposed: rename `ptr` request to `pwh` (with transition period)

At 2025-12-23T16:49:05-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 3:13 PM G. Branden Robinson
> I don't object to this particular change -- I agree that it being a
> debugging rather than production request gives its back compatibility
> less weight -- but to the idea that groff innovations are absolved
> from compatibility responsibilities.  That ignores how much of troff
> history *is* now groff history.

Point taken.  I'll soften my rationale to a claim that the groff request
name `ptr` is _less_ sacrosanct than the AT&T `pm` request name.

We can retain the "compatibility wrapper macro" for as long as seems
necessary.  I'll be curious to see how much feedback we get from
groff 1.24.0 users on the `hpfcode` "rug pull".

NEWS:

*  The `hpfcode` request now emits an error when used, advising of its
   planned withdrawal, but then proceeds with normal behavior.  The
   documented replacement mechanism, the `hcode` request, has existed
   since groff 1.02 (June 1991) at the latest.

Regards,
Branden

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=o/6w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----