> But i now do think that the -C command line option should get an
> environment counterpart, say ROFF_COMPAT_MODE, ROFF_COMPATIBLE or
> something similar, and i will cover the leading whitespace issue
> with this. I cannot find such an environment for GNU troff yet? I
> think this would be a us
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014, Dale Snell wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:36:04 +
> Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> > BTW, your mombog.mom had a blank line at the start and the comments
> > were lines starting `\#' rather than `.\#'. One or the other might
> > have an affect on your attempt at A3 in mom, I
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014, Dale Snell wrote:
> BTW, out of my 'satiable curiosity, is mom being used by other
> *roffs, or is it strictly Groff?
Strictly groff since it relies the GNU extensions. It could
probably be adapted for other roffs, but I haven't had the time to
explore the situation.
--
Pe
Doug McIlroy wrote:
> I'd put consistency before (largely imagined) orthogonality.
> I'm sure that had it been brought to the attention of the Unix
> lab back in the day, one of us would have fixed it.
Then maybe we should consider at least to add an issue to the issue tracker.
For soelim (or x
>> [..] I think it's not a bad idea to stay with this scheme for
>> orthogonality:
>>
>> .XXX
>>
>> can be handled by a preprocessor, while
>>
>> .XXX
>>
>> is something only `troff' should process.
I'd put consistency before (largely imagined) orthogonality.
I'm sure that had it been brought
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|>|Yes. But generally it can be expected that spaces between \
|>|. and a macro name doesn't matter.
|>
|> I agree with you here.
|
|Just in case it hasn't been mentioned before: At least for the `.so'
|request, there is a big difference between
|
| .so
|
|and
>> OK. s/daily/commit/.
>
> That looks good. The same change should still be made in
> doc/webpage.ms, too.
Fixed, thanks.
Werner
>> [..] I think it's not a bad idea to stay with this scheme for
>> orthogonality:
>>
>> .XXX
>>
>> can be handled by a preprocessor, while
>>
>> .XXX
>>
>> is something only `troff' should process.
>
> Is this documented somewhere?
No. It's my ad-hoc suggestion.
Werner
> Just in case it hasn't been mentioned before: At least for the `.so'
> request, there is a big difference between
>
> .so
>
> and
>
> .so
This is documented differently in the 3BSD manpage: 'so is documented to be
ignored by soelim. Nothing is mentioned about spaces between . and so
