On 2024-08-09 19:38:48 +1000, John Gardner wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> > I really see a "+" underlined
>
> Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now out
> of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go.
The underline bar is slightly different from an unde
Hi John,
At 2024-08-09T19:35:21+1000, John Gardner wrote:
> > Numeric expressions are already valid conditional expressions, so
> > all we'd need here is a syntax for interpolating an output device
> > parameter. […] As it happens, `\T` is *not* yet taken.
>
>
> True, but for fields that have le
Hi John,
...butting in on your dialogue with Vincent again...
At 2024-08-09T19:38:48+1000, John Gardner wrote:
>> I really see a "+" underlined
>
> Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now
> out of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go.
If the
Hi Vincent,
I really see a "+" underlined
Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now out
of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go.
Concerning the original problem, I find myself in agreement with the
general majority here: consistency with the ex
Hi Branden,
Numeric expressions are already valid conditional expressions, so all we'd
> need here is a syntax for interpolating an output device parameter. […] As
> it happens, `\T` is *not* yet taken.
True, but for fields that have lengthy values, it might help to have a
syntax for testing the
On 2024-08-09 15:53:30 +1000, John Gardner wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> > So ideally, the fallback for "±0" should be "+0 or -0", which is
> > much more readable and less ambiguous than "+-0" or "+/-0".
>
> For approximating ± in ASCII, is there some reason \z_+0 hasn't been
> considered?
I don't li
Hi John,
At 2024-08-09T16:41:11+1000, John Gardner wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> > All of the terminal output devices groff supports lack overstriking
> > support.
>
> Whoops. I forgot that what I was seeing in less(1) was actually duped
I don't think it was duped. It was being clever. There is lots o
Hi Branden,
All of the terminal output devices groff supports lack overstriking support.
Whoops. I forgot that what I was seeing in less(1) was actually duped using
an underline effect. On that note, am I right to assume that \fI+\fP0 is
equally implausible by virtue of terminals diverging wildl
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024, John Gardner wrote:
So ideally, the fallback for "?0" should be "+0 or -0", which is
much more readable and less ambiguous than "+-0" or "+/-0".
For approximating ? in ASCII, is there some reason \z_+0 hasn't been
considered?
I had forgotten that approach.
The problem o
Hi John,
At 2024-08-09T15:53:30+1000, John Gardner wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
Not to horn in, but I think I'm better situated to venture opinions or
background on implementation decisions taken in groff than Vincent is.
> So ideally, the fallback for "±0" should be "+0 or -0", which is
> > much more r
Hi Vincent,
So ideally, the fallback for "±0" should be "+0 or -0", which is
> much more readable and less ambiguous than "+-0" or "+/-0".
For approximating ± in ASCII, is there some reason \z_+0 hasn't been
considered?
I'm asking earnestly, as I'm primed to assume overstriking hacks have
alrea
On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 7:59 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> FYI, +-0 could be interpreted by the reader as in C, where a unary
> minus operator is applied, then a unary plus operator. And about +/-0,
> the "/" is already used a the division operator, so that this doesn't
> help parsing.
It helps *som
On 2024-08-08 07:16:03 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2024-08-08T10:07:35+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Hmmm, I see. Thanks! I think "If x is ±0" is the clearest way to say
> > it. I'm not sure if that glyph is available everywhere, though. How
> > about "If x is 0 or -0"?
>
> I t
[looping in groff@gnu]
At 2024-08-08T10:07:35+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:56:36AM GMT, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2024-08-07 23:19:56 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > Hi Vincent,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:56:17PM GMT, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
14 matches
Mail list logo
