Hello T. Kurt,
On 1/27/22 16:18, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> And troff comments appearing in html output as html comments is
> something I explicitly DON’T want happening. My comments are NOT
> intended to be part of the finished document in any form.
Sounds perfecty reasonable. So, if this is added,
T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> And troff comments appearing in html output as html comments is something I
> explicitly DON’T want happening. My comments are NOT intended to be part
> of the finished document in any form.
I second this feeling. I'm new to this but to me groff output is
supposed to be a
x,
>
> At 2022-01-24T22:48:29+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Hi Branden,
> >
> > I'd like to see groff comments preserved in the HTML output (as HTML
> > comments).
> >
> > So, for `groff -T html ...`,
> >
> > .\" hello world
> >
Hi Alex,
At 2022-01-24T22:48:29+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> I'd like to see groff comments preserved in the HTML output (as HTML
> comments).
>
> So, for `groff -T html ...`,
>
> .\" hello world
>
> would be transformed to
Hi Branden,
I'd like to see groff comments preserved in the HTML output (as HTML
comments).
So, for `groff -T html ...`,
.\" hello world
would be transformed to
Sounds good?
Cheers,
Alex
--
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-p
I just finished reading all 9,535 bytes of Bjarni's e-mail, and I still
don't have a single idea what he's talking baout... =(
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 at 13:10, Bjarni Ingi Gislason
wrote:
> Title: \} considered as macro argument regarding register .$
>
>
> The reported bug (#42675) is a panic o
Title: \} considered as macro argument regarding register .$
The reported bug (#42675) is a panic one.
(Later I checked the whole earlier "discussion" on the "groff" list.
The whole shows me such a lack of thinking; it is just reacting and
"don't think about it, neither before and especiall
Hi Carsten,
To where should I send my examples.
Is just an attachment OK. The TGZ file with raw text and postscript output
is 30K.
Also, my line 2086 in m.tmac says
.ds@set-new-ev \\n[ds*old-ll]
which is from contrib in 1.22.3.
Looking at your diffs, it seems you have replaced thi
Tadziu Hoffmann:
> Note the "dot" version of the comment in the last
> example.
Thank you very much!
Anton
On 13-Jul-11 22:02:14, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
>> It also works (in Anton's example) without the dot, as in:
> [snip]
>> . if (2=2) \{\"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
> [snip]
>> . if (2=2) \{\
>> \"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
> [snip]
>> . if (2=2
Erratum: The ".}" in my previous message should have read ".\}"
(shouldn't copy-paste stuff that has errors...).
> It also works (in Anton's example) without the dot, as in:
[snip]
> . if (2=2) \{\"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
[snip]
> . if (2=2) \{\
> \"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
[snip]
> . if (2=2) \{
> \"Remove this comment including the space in col. 17
> > I have come across a very strage situation in which
> > the behaviour of groff seems to depend on:
> >
> > a. whether it happens in a diversion or not and
> > b. the presence of a comment.
>
> Multiline conditionals are a bit tricky.
> The following conditionals should work:
Forgot thi
On 13-Jul-11 21:07:22, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>
>> I have come across a very strage situation in which
>> the behaviour of groff seems to depend on:
>>
>> a. whether it happens in a diversion or not and
>> b. the presence of a comment.
>
>
> Multiline conditionals are a bit tricky.
> The
> I have come across a very strage situation in which
> the behaviour of groff seems to depend on:
>
> a. whether it happens in a diversion or not and
> b. the presence of a comment.
Multiline conditionals are a bit tricky.
The following conditionals should work:
.if condition stuff
Hello all,
I have come across a very strage situation in which
the behaviour of groff seems to depend on:
a. whether it happens in a diversion or not and
b. the presence of a comment.
In the example below it is demonstrated using the
.tm request:
---
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:50:04AM -0400, Louis Guillaume wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It appears that comments are "counted" in non-fill mode. Is this by
> design for some reason?
>
> 8<---8<---
> .nf
> text text text text text text text
> \".ps 14
> \".vs 15
> \"\v'-3.05'TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
> \
Hi!
It appears that comments are "counted" in non-fill mode. Is this by
design for some reason?
8<---8<---
.nf
text text text text text text text
\".ps 14
\".vs 15
\"\v'-3.05'TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
\"\v'-3.05'\n[year]\(bu\n[mo]\(bu\n[dy]
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
\n[year]\(bu\n[mo]\(bu\n[dy
> > While I fully agree that groff's source code files should have
> > much more comments, I'm not really happy with the layout you
> > provide in your patch. James Clark's code has a certain
> > compactness which I would like to retain
>
> Personal preferences about style obviously differ. Thank
Hello Werner,
> While I fully agree that groff's source code files should have much
> more comments, I'm not really happy with the layout you provide in
> your patch. James Clark's code has a certain compactness which I
> would like to retain
Personal preferences about style obviously differ. Th
> For the first step, the support of all Unicode characters without
> huge data tables, I intend to submit modifications to the following
> files:
Thanks!
While I fully agree that groff's source code files should have much
more comments, I'm not really happy with the layout you provide in
your p
Hi,
For the first step, the support of all Unicode characters without huge data
tables, I intend to submit modifications to the following files:
font.h, font.cpp, nametoindex.cpp, troff/input.cpp, post-html.cpp.
Since most files are without comments and since it takes me about 10 or 50
times
22 matches
Mail list logo
