> just an idea: the problem would go away if the `.so' request could
> be told (by a second argument to the request) to rerun all necessary
> preprocessors on the sourced file before inserting it (the
> preprocessors could be those specified in the groff call or
> explicitely specified to the `.so' reguest). would this be a good
> idea (apart from the someone_has_to_implement_it aspect)?
I don't think that this is a good idea. It is far too complicated to
implement, and I can easily construct examples where a second
expansion isn't enough, this is, you would need a third level of
expansion.
Why do you insist on passing the contents of a string register to
`.so'? It's rather easy to construct an input file `so-data' on the
fly (using a Makefile, for example) which just contains a single line
.so <your file>
and this file is then included with
.so so-data
in the main data file.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
