Hi Larry,
At 2024-02-22T21:37:12-0500, Larry Kollar wrote:
> I’m a little late to the party, but I’ve read Alex’s original post
> over several times, and I have to wonder if everyone is over-thinking
> this.
Yes and no.
> > On Feb 16, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > I've been th
I’m a little late to the party, but I’ve read Alex’s original post over several
times, and I have to wonder if everyone is over-thinking this.
> On Feb 16, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> Hi Branden!
>
> I've been thinking about a suggestion I've done in the past. I wanted a
>
Hi folks,
I've come to think that a set of "best practice" for *roff document
composition is to:
A. Load your desired full-service macro package (if any) on the command
line with `-m`.
B. Load any auxiliary macro packages that your document _requires_
either on the command line with `-m
I'd like to suggest the attached diff.
What removing this code would do is make the `mso` request no longer
look for "tmac.s" if "s.tmac" is specified as the request's argument,
and vice versa.
Here's my case against.
1. It's needless complexity.
2. The main things you'd need this for are full
On 2/6/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Fair! I forgot about this. Before posting, I scanned down the request
> list in groff(7) to protect myself from embarrassment--uselessly.
The advantage of my brain holding far fewer groff requests than yours
is that it can allocate space for more detail a
