> > `-i` is a _postprocessor_ option here. Recall the basic *roff pipeline. >
Ugh, *obviously.* For fuck sake, this is why I shouldn't be allowed to send e-mails at 4am. Somehow I got my wires crossed whilst preparing that e-mail, because I vaguely recall having both grotty(1) and groff(1) open at the same time. groffy(1), if you will. Apologies for the retarded e-mail. This hasn't been one of my finer moments. — J On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 11:09, G. Branden Robinson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > At 2022-07-22T07:29:48+1000, John Gardner wrote: > > I'm looking for a way to harden my .UL > > < > https://github.com/Alhadis/Mono/blob/25765171fbf676b623a4bcbf3d9f93384ef83040/ono.tmac#L171-L233 > > > > (underline) macro against grotty(1) v1.23's new -i switch, > > This command-line option is not forthcoming. It was introduced in groff > 1.18 (July 2002).[1] So it's a 20 year-old feature. > > What groff 1.23 does do is add a `-P` option to nroff so that arbitrary > options can be passed to the postprocessor via that command.[2] > > > which causes italicised text to be rendered with actual italics (in > > TTYs that support SGR 3, at least). My intended workaround involves > > something like > > > > \l'\w,\$1,u\(ul'\h'-\w,\$1,u'\$1 > > > > or some similarly atrocious hack. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear > > to be any predefined register to report the status of grotty(1)'s -i > > and -r switches (both of which change how italic fonts are rendered in > > the terminal). > > > > Can anybody confirm that what I'm seeking to do is even possible? > > As I understand *roff architecture, this is indeed impossible. > > `-i` is a _postprocessor_ option here. Recall the basic *roff pipeline. > > preprocessor | troff | postprocessor > > The most your macro can know about postprocessor-specific information is > what was given as the -T argument to troff, what's in the corresponding > `DESC` file (only if a mechanism for exposing that information via the > roff language has been implemented), and, in groff, what the > postprocessor-specific macro file (like tty.tmac) chooses to declare. > > Further, the pipeline can always be broken up such that a "grout" file > (the output of the troff command itself) is stored and then processed > with a different output driver (this is how gxditview works) or with > different options to the intended output driver. > > What are you trying to do? Avoid underlining text that the output > device is already underlining itself? > > Regards, > Branden > > [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS#n1694 > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS#n2083 > [2] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS#n77 >
