Hi Anton,
> > I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input language of
> > troff is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose
>
> Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays. I'd advise against reading
> The TeXbook. For people who just want to get their standard
> technical/scie
I sent this to the list yesterday, but seems
it didn't reach it, so trying to send again.
ms table of contents (TOC) facilities are poor.
The groff manual agrees with me. Moreover it
suggests that NH macro should be modified [1].
Here's an easy macro that helps. Any comments?
Anton
$ cat msext.t
>To: groff@gnu.org
>Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:06:29 +
>From: Ralph Corderoy
>
>I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input language of troff
>is superior for mark-up that doesn't clutter the prose, e.g. often small
Nobody I know of uses raw tex nowadays.
I'd advise against reading
Hi Steve,
> > * Strange, irregular, archaic-seeming markup design compared to XML
> > or even TeX. Brian Kernignan called it "rebarbative" in *1979*.
>
> Groff is a filter. The input language, the markup, etc., is entirely
> arbitary.
I read _The TeXbook_ and returned to troff. The input langu
Hi,
Werner wrote:
> Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
> instead.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/B/bondage-and-discipline-language.html
`.bnd'? :-)
Cheers, Ralph.
Hello alls,
Deri James wrote:
> If I have misunderstood Eric's intentions with regard to the purpose of
> introducing the .hygiene command, then it would be very helpful if he could
> elucidate further.
The .hygiene command is an interesting debate. I don't
exactly know what to think about
>From: James Cloos
>To: groff@gnu.org
>Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:59:09 -0400
>
>Gnuplot would like an example document showcasing troff+pic, using
>gnuplot's gpic terminal to generate the pic, for regression testing.
>
>Does anyone have one handy?
>
>-JimC
>--
>James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/
Werner LEMBERG :
> Please do me a favour: Don't call this `hygienic'. Say `restricted'
> instead. Today, technical English for software must satisfy some
> constraints, IMHO, and one of them is the avoidance of `colourful'
> terms that might call unwanted associations, especially if there are
> a
