Joerg van den Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > and compare "geqn/groff" with "heqn/htroff" generated ps > output _and_ with the above document from bell labs you'll > see especially that in the original doc the equation is > typeset with _some_ spacing, different from groff but more > (and better) spacing than by heqn/htroff.
Okay, I now see that I introduced that problem myself back in November 2007; eqn produces a \^ where it should produce a \|. I'll find a way to make that work properly and tell you when it's done. > > In general, geqn goes more into the direction of TeX and > > tries to more automatically layout the formulas, whereas > > the old eqn on which Heirloom eqn is based requires manual > > interaction in many places. However, documents on which > > such hand-tuning is applied would not get formatted as > > intended if Heirloom eqn did the same. Thus, I will keep > > it as is; I also regard it as a good thing if the two > > programs keep a different approach to formula typesetting. > > the latter is fine with me (although I don't think that geqn > is much more "automatic" than the original one). That's what the geqn manual page describes in its usage section as "automatic spacing", at least. I never looked into its source code so I cannot tell you how much of a difference it actually makes. > seem's not to be true if I don't do something silly wrong. > with the above example formula (say in file "tt") and > > geqn tt | groff -ms > tt.ps > heqn tt | htroff -ms | dpost > tt2.ps > geqn tt | htroff -ms | dpost > tt3.ps > > only the first two work. the third produces an empty page > when viewed in `gv'. I see, I was wrong, it actually needs -mg (the groff compatibility macros) to work. Gunnar
