Hi Branden,
> I know I will be mightily tempted to encourage others to adopt the
> practice, in large part because "device-independent [gt]roff] output" is
> far too long to type or speak repeatedly.
I've always just called it "ditroff" (*"device-independent troff [output]"*),
with *.dit and *.ditroff being my typical choice of file extensions. I'm
aware that it's a reappropriation of an obsolete name for all post-Osanna
troff(1) implementations, but its meaning is clearer to readers familiar
with the term *"device-independent [gt]roff output"*. The names "grout" and
"trout", OTOH, are a lot less obvious. Not to mention they'll be used
interchangeably and inconsistently à la nroff/groff/troff).
On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 at 12:26, G. Branden Robinson <
g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At 2023-04-06T10:39:13+0000, Lennart Jablonka wrote:
> > Then comes the noteworthy bit: Concatenate the troff output of all
> > those separate documents and feed it all to the postprocessor at once,
> > as in
> >
> > troff -ms mainmatter.ms >mainmatter.trout 2>toc
> > { troff frontmatter && troff toc && cat mainmatter.trout; }
> | gropdf
> > >all.pdf
> >
> > That’s what I would do.
>
> I must say I am delighted to see that it has occurred to someone else to
> use the suffixes "trout" (and presumably "grout") for device-independent
> troff and GNU roff output.
>
> When I get around to my planned soup-to-nuts revision of groff_out(5), I
> know I will be mightily tempted to encourage others to adopt the
> practice, in large part because "device-independent [gt]roff] output" is
> far too long to type or speak repeatedly.
>
> Regards,
> Branden
>
