(any opinion so far?)

On Jan 31 18:51:59, jmc@kerhand.co.uk wrote:
> hi. this reads fine to me and seems clearer, but a technical ok would be good too.
> 
> jmc
> 
> On 31 January 2025 17:37:42 GMT, Jan Stary <hans@stare.cz> wrote:
> >The following wording for tr -s
> >is IMHO a little bit clearer,
> >judging by the recent discusion on misc@
> >
> >	Jan
> >
> >
> >--- tr.1.orig	Tue Jan 28 19:08:31 2025
> >+++ tr.1	Tue Jan 28 19:12:08 2025
> >@@ -80,15 +80,15 @@ The
> > .Fl d
> > option causes characters to be deleted from the input.
> > .It Fl s
> >-The
> >+After all deletion and translation is completed,
> >+the
> > .Fl s
> >-option squeezes multiple occurrences of the characters listed in the last
> >-operand (either
> >+option squeezes multiple consecutive occurrences of the characters
> >+listed in the last operand (either
> > .Ar string1
> > or
> > .Ar string2 )
> >-in the input into a single instance of the character.
> >-This occurs after all deletion and translation is completed.
> >+into a single instance of the character.
> > .El
> > .Pp
> > In the first synopsis form, the characters in
> >