Hi Rob,
Please keep groff@gnu.org CC'd.
> I am keen to completely switch from PS to PDF. The thread suggests
> there is a PDFPIC macro. What release is it or will it be in? Do I
> have a release to look forward to?
...
> I currently use 1.22.3
Me too, and that's the latest. It doesn't have t
On Tue 10 Apr 2018 19:26:57 Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > I don't have a specific name suggestion, and I'm aware that
> > this is a bikeshed, but can I suggest a more explicit variable
> > name? Otherwise the next time some old behaviour needs to be
> > switchably deprecated we're in for some confusi
> I don't have a specific name suggestion, and I'm aware that
> this is a bikeshed, but can I suggest a more explicit variable
> name? Otherwise the next time some old behaviour needs to be
> switchably deprecated we're in for some confusion.
Maybe a descriptive name, for example PDFPIC_NOSPACE?
[See at end ... ]
On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 18:05 +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:57:19PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
> > To avoid making existing documents render incorrectly I propose to allow
> > the
> > existing behaviour to be selected. Adding this to the NEWS file:-
> >
>
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:57:19PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
> To avoid making existing documents render incorrectly I propose to allow the
> existing behaviour to be selected. Adding this to the NEWS file:-
>
>
> PDFPIC
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, Deri James wrote:
>
> PDFPIC has now been corrected, so the behaviour is the same whether you use
> the postscript or pdf drivers. However, this means that any documents which
> were written using t
Hi Deri,
I agree that altering the default to obtain the old `faulty' behaviour
is a good idea.
> A) Add the line ".nr PDFPIC_LEGACY 1" to the document before the first
> call to .PDFPIC.
>
> B) If it is just a single document which exhibits this behaviour you
> can run groff adding "-rPDFPIC_LEG
On Mon 02 Apr 2018 12:14:03 Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Good afternoon Bernhard,
>
> > > So pdfpic is an extension of pspic. By that you can now even replace
> > > all PSPIC by PDFPIC, nothing gets lost by that.
> >
> > I read this as suggesting that results with -Tps and -Tpdf should be
> > equivale
On Mon 02 Apr 2018 14:30:51 Doug McIlroy wrote:
> > > Would it hence be sensible to change PDFPIC to fit
the description
>
> Yes. This is clearly a bug, even if it's been around for
years.
>
> Doug
100% agreement this should be fixed, although
compatibility with previous version will be broke
Good afternoon Bernhard,
> > So pdfpic is an extension of pspic. By that you can now even replace
> > all PSPIC by PDFPIC, nothing gets lost by that.
>
> I read this as suggesting that results with -Tps and -Tpdf should be
> equivalent.
Strongly agree.
> Would it hence be sensible to change PDFP
Good evening,
when playing around with PSPIC and PDFPIC, I noticed that they behave
differently: PDFPIC does not reserve vertical space for a picture, but
PSPIC does. I had asked Deri James's help on this, he confirmed the
problem and suggested to raise the question here.
The documentation in g
11 matches
Mail list logo
