> Should we be worried about having too few characters left though?
> Do we need to work on a solution?
No need to worry – we can always use long option if really, really
necessary (what I doubt, to be honest).
Werner
Should we be worried about having too few characters left though? Do we
need to work on a solution?
- Vaibhaw
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >> A `groff' option for running the `gideal' preprocessor is needed.
> >
> > Only once the preprocessor has a significant enoug
>> A `groff' option for running the `gideal' preprocessor is needed.
>
> Only once the preprocessor has a significant enough audience to make
> it worthwhile? Meanwhile, it can continue to be explicitly
> pipelined?
Given that `ideal' is a traditional preprocessor, I think it is a good
thing to
> A `groff' option for running the `gideal' preprocessor is needed. I
> propose upper case `-J', because the lower case `-j' was used for
> `chem'.
This is OK with me.
Werner
> The new project `gideal' tries to integrate the roff language
> `ideal' into `groff'. It is positioned at `contrib/gideal'. [...]
Thanks for working on that!
Werner
Hi Bernd,
> A `groff' option for running the `gideal' preprocessor is needed.
Only once the preprocessor has a significant enough audience to make it
worthwhile? Meanwhile, it can continue to be explicitly pipelined?
> Free characters from there are: [ABHJOuxyY]
Too few to dedicate remaining o
A `groff' option for running the `gideal' preprocessor is needed.
I propose upper case `-J', because the lower case `-j' was used
for `chem'.
Other characters are also possible from the shell command
$ groff -h | grep '^-' | sort | less
Free characters from there are: [ABHJOuxyY]
`ideal' is almo
The new project `gideal' tries to integrate the roff language `ideal'
into `groff'. It is positioned at `contrib/gideal'.
The preprocessor is named `gideal' from `gideal.pl', with the man-
page `gideal.1'. This preprocessor is just in a testing phase for
identifying the `ideal' parts. But the `
