> first, I don't understand German (I am Czech), but I used google translate, > hopefully getting the meaning.
Sorry for that! > Second, it's generally better (unless it's really personal or highly > technical) > to keep the discussion within the mailing list, since then other people > can also contribute; I am far from an expert. Thus I have brought the > discussion back to the list. Since nobody seems to use troff on P9 I regarded it as off-topic. > http://9fans.net/archive/2011/11/106 Thank you! > some more ... > http://9fans.net/archive/?q=sykora+eqn&go=Grep I can't believe that TeX should not produce better results, but thats really OT... > I would say that groff is *much, much* more tested software. > P9 troff is basically dead. Not dead ... lets call it freezed or so ... > I'd rather say that p9p software is the source these days. Really? Ok, if I compare the sources it looks like this. Is this true for troff only or for p9p in general? So p9 troff posts may be better done on the p9p list? > troff is a macro language. This I completely don't understand. If someone has much time and uses only low level requests than the word "macro" should be improper? What is not a macro language, i.e. what do you suggest to use instead? > Page makeup by postprocessing text formatter output > by Kernighan & Wyk I also do not understand that. It is possible to write very good macro packages for troff. Also TeX can produce very good documents. Ok, this is OT again. Carsten
