Hi John,
At 2024-02-28T10:02:16+1100, John Gardner wrote:
> > or because of that guy's rambling response enhanced by Boots of
> > Striding and Springing?
(I was referring to the eyoung* guy...but...)
> That, and the impossibility of attempting to correct a sentence like
> *"Terminals support onl
>
> or because of that guy's rambling response enhanced by Boots of Striding
> and Springing?
That, and the impossibility of attempting to correct a sentence like
*"Terminals
support only four font names: R, I, B, and BI"*. Like, I know what the
user's attempting to say, but it's not so much "wro
Hi John,
At 2024-02-28T09:56:04+1100, John Gardner wrote:
[I wrote]:
> > Why not refer to the preprocessors by their options? -t -p -e?
>
> Because those preprocessor options won't necessarily be available in
> every Troff implementation; e.g., Heirloom and Neatroff. Even worse,
> they could mea
Hi Branden,
Why not refer to the preprocessors by their options? -t -p -e?
Because those preprocessor options won't necessarily be available in every
Troff implementation; e.g., Heirloom and Neatroff. Even worse, they could
mean different things altogether, like -t and -p did in otroff.
FYI, t
Hi Dave, Larry, and John,
At 2024-02-23T09:07:42-0600, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 2/22/24, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 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
> >
Hi John,
At 2024-02-28T07:26:21+1100, John Gardner wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> Wouldn't this conflict with behaviour documented in groff_tmac(5)? From the
> section *"Inclusion"* (emphasis mine):
Very much so, which is why I am submitting the proposal to this mailing
list for feedback/assent/things
At 2024-02-28T07:30:37+1100, John Gardner wrote:
> > Terminals support only four font names: R, I, B, and BI; the
> > *grotty*(1) man page says more. Attempting to select any other font
> > name will fail; like much else in Unix, *roff font names are
> > case-sensitive. *groff* 1.23.0 started issui
I tend to begin my documents with the following comment, designed to
illustrate for the author what macro packages are used by the document,
which preprocessors are needed, etc:
.\" uses: -mpdfmark -man -rLL=80 tbl pic eqn
I opt for a *descriptive* directive instead of a *prescriptive* one ("uses
>
> Terminals support only four font names: R, I, B, and BI; the *grotty*(1)
> man page says more. Attempting to select any other font name will fail;
> like much else in Unix, *roff font names are case-sensitive. *groff*
> 1.23.0 started issuing diagnostics upon font selection failure in many more
Hi Branden,
Wouldn't this conflict with behaviour documented in groff_tmac(5)? From the
section *"Inclusion"* (emphasis mine):
GNU troff offers an improved feature in the similar request “*mso*
> *package-file-name*”, which searches the macro path for
> *package-file-name*. Because its argument i
10 matches
Mail list logo
