Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you are using only few additional software as usual on a
> production machine, there is no actual need to install groff
> since manual pages are mostly portable to AT&T-derived nroff
> -man in practice. We should not deliberately break that.
I feel at this p
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The other side of this is that you would either need to get
> > the new macros into the -man macros of AIX, HP-UX, and the
> > other remaining closed source Unix implementations, or you
> > should inform the main
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The other side of this is that you would either need to get
> the new macros into the -man macros of AIX, HP-UX, and the
> other remaining closed source Unix implementations, or you
> should inform the maintainers that their manual pages become
> less portable w
Out of 13,117 man pages in a full FC6 unstallation with netpbm removed:
78 (0.59%) use .ti
32 (0.24%) use .EX/.EE or .Ex/.Ee with no local definition
91 (0.69%) use .DS/.DE or .Ds/.De with no local definition.
14 (0.10%) use mdoc .Xo/.Xc.
29 (0.022) use \w.
All these statistics are after appl
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that we can do a decent job by adding a small set of
> additional macros to man; this would have the benefit of getting a
> clear conversion with doclifter, and a standardized interface for
> future man pages (which current ones might adopt also
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know Gunnarr has concerns about macros we might add going unused, but I
> have some ability to influence that. I've successfully pushed over
> 200 man-page patches upstream to different projects.
The other side of this is that you would either nee
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Similar to evaluation, I would like to have some guide lines how to
> use \w -- there are examples where this escape greatly improves the
> layout in a generic way. Ideally, those are encapsulated in proper
> man macros, but...
I will investigate and report.
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It seems that we can do a decent job by adding a small set of
> additional macros to man; this would have the benefit of getting a
> clear conversion with doclifter, and a standardized interface for
> future man pages (which current ones might adopt also).
Agr
> Safe escapes:
> \' \- \$ \* \& \ \
> \c \d \e \f \u \n
A follow-up: This is only a small fraction of the escapes! Examples
for missing ones are \\, \e, or \~. Perhaps it's easier to tell us
which (besides \w) are problematic.
Werner
> Safe escapes:
> \' \- \$ \* \& \ \
> \c \d \e \f \u \n
>
> Note that \w is *not* safe.
Hmm.
> In general, we can't count on the viewer to be able to render
> horizontal or vertical motions with precision, we can't count on it
> to know font sizes, and we can't even count on it to
> > I'm willing to restrict the involved macros to something doclifter
> > can understand (and this stuff could be then documented properly
> > in a guide).
>
> That would be a large step in a good direction, and one that would
> benefit other viewers as well and make Gunnarr happy. I will
> coo
> I think, if you do that, this bit
>
> > .nr a \n(.j
> > .ad l
> > .nr i \n(.i
> > .in +\w'\fBtroff 'u
> > .ti \niu
> > .B troff
>
> ought to turn into something like
>
> def SY
>.nr a \n(.j
>.ad l
>.nr i \n(.i
>.in +\w'\fB\\$1 'u
>.ti \niu
>.B \\$1
> .SY tro
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > In general I might agree with you. However, .EX/.EE and .DS/.DE
> > have a couple of interesting properties:
> >
> > 1. They are, by far, the most commonly invoked man macros that don't
> > exist. :-) That is, significant numbers of man-page writers think t
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general I might agree with you. However, .EX/.EE and .DS/.DE
> have a couple of interesting properties:
>
> 1. They are, by far, the most commonly invoked man macros that don't
> exist. :-) That is, significant numbers of man-page writers think
Gunnar Ritter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I doubt it is useful at all. It is perfectly okay to use
> statements outside the "safe" set if they do not do harm
> when a viewer just discards them.
I think you just widened the meaning of "safe". :-).
> > On a related topic, there are a couple of man macro
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I could also have it emit a FIXME warning that hand polishing might
> > be needed here. I try to avoid those without a really good reason,
> > though. Presently I think there's only one, attached to a truly
> > wacky edge case in processing of list marku
"Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I think it might not be a bad idea for troff to throw warnings when
> > > a man page uses a troff request outside the safe set. Note that I
> > > am *not* recommending this measure for troff documents other
> I could also have it emit a FIXME warning that hand polishing might
> be needed here. I try to avoid those without a really good reason,
> though. Presently I think there's only one, attached to a truly
> wacky edge case in processing of list markup.
Is it possible to have a `verbose' mode of
18 matches
Mail list logo
