At 2023-08-18T03:24:53+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > Understanding *roff a little better 6 years later, I can more easily
> > imagine ways to run AT&T troff out of memory on a PDP-11.
> > Ultra-long diversions would be one way,[1]
> > [1] Nobody _except_ mandoc(1) seems to handle this well. Credi
Hi,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 06:44:14PM -0500:
> At 2023-08-17T21:12:35+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> The problem is that at no point you can have the .roff source, after
>> the man(7) macros have been expanded. Would it be possible to split
>> the groff(1) pipeline
The problem is that at no point you can have the .roff source, after
the man(7) macros have been expanded. Would it be possible to split
the groff(1) pipeline to have one more preprocessor, let's call it
woman(1) (because man(1) is already taken), so that it translates
man(7) to roff(7)? I'd lik
[self-follow-up]
Fixing a footnote oops. Numbers corrected in quoted material.
At 2023-08-17T18:44:14-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
> I think we can. I've been mulling this for months, and now that I'm
> on the threshold of implementing a `for` request as a string
> iterator,[2] I thin
Hi Alex,
At 2023-08-17T21:12:35+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> I've had this desire for a long time, and maybe now I have a strong
> reason to ask for it.
[...]
> The problem is that at no point you can have the .roff source, after
> the man(7) macros have been expanded. Would it be possible to
On 2023-08-17 21:12, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> I've had this desire for a long time, and maybe now I have a strong
> reason to ask for it.
>
> In the usual groff pipeline, you have something like
>
> $ preconvfoo.1 >foo.1.tbl
> $ tbl
Hi Branden,
I've had this desire for a long time, and maybe now I have a strong
reason to ask for it.
In the usual groff pipeline, you have something like
$ preconvfoo.1 >foo.1.tbl
$ tbl foo.1.eqn
$ eqn -Tutf8foo.1.man
$ troff
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:16:14AM -0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
> The best course of action is patience. \-: You've created a patch,
> and a developer has to evaluate it and decide to either apply it or to
> ask for changes. Unfortunately, groff developers are in short supply,
> so this may take som
On 8/12/23, Alexis wrote:
> What is a good course of action to move forward with this?
The best course of action is patience. \-: You've created a patch,
and a developer has to evaluate it and decide to either apply it or to
ask for changes. Unfortunately, groff developers are in short supply,
