Re: [PATCH] Don't use groff(1) specific string syntax

> I checked the NetBSD code and they replaced these with literals
> instead.  Any reason why we can't do the same thing?

As I mentioned, those are listed as "preferred" alternatives in
groff_mdoc(7); I wasn't sure if that document was specific to groff --
other "preferred" suggestions are strings that are unique to groff and
not portable -- therefore my concern was portability, but if NetBSD uses
them, it should be fine (and more readable!)

Thanks,
-- 
S.