Sounds about right to me, though my troff/groff expertise has atrophied
quite a bit over the last 20 years.
Brian
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014, Mike Bianchi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Blake McBride wrote:
I found that Groff and Heirloom handle backslashes in tables differently.
I actually think both are wrong, but I am not sure. My input is as
follows:
.TS
a a .
INPUT PRODUCES
\\\\ \\
abc def
.TE
I am processing it with tbl & troff but no macro packages. They produce
different results - both unexpected by me. What I am trying to produce is
as follows:
INPUT PRODUCES
\\ \
abc def
(Yes, I am using tabs between the columns on the real input file.)
You've run into what (I think) was first stated as "Kernighan's Lemma"
which went something like:
In troff, the number of / characters necessary to output a single
/ character grows exponentially with macro depth.
This is why the \e escape was created:
... \e represents the current escape character.
To get a backslash glyph, use \(rs or \[rs].
groff(7)
Brian: I hope I represented this accurately. ;)
--
Mike Bianchi
Foveal Systems
973 822-2085
mbian...@foveal.com
http://www.AutoAuditorium.com
http://www.FovealMounts.com
