Update of bug #64484 (project groff):
Severity: 3 - Normal => 2 - Minor
Assigned to: deri => gbranden
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #2:
There are 4 separate ways to send text to a postprocessor.
.ds a deri
\X'X \(ti \*a'
.device device \(ti \*a
.fl
\! ! \(ti \*a
.output output \(ti \*a
.tm tm \(ti \*a \" output to STDERR
Which produces:-
x T ps
x res 72000 1 1
x init
p1
V12000
H72000
x font 5 TR
f5
s10000
V12000
H72000
md
DFd
x X X ~ deri
wh2500
V12000
H74500
x X device \(ti deri
n12000 0
! \(ti deri
output \(ti deri
tm \(ti deri
x trailer
V792000
x stop
\X is the only one which attempts to "asciify" the parameters. There is a
difference between the two pairs of commands, if you remove the .fl and
rerun:-
x T ps
x res 72000 1 1
x init
p1
! \(ti deri
output \(ti deri
tm \(ti deri
V12000
H72000
x font 5 TR
f5
s10000
V12000
H72000
md
DFd
x X X ~ deri
wh2500
V12000
H74500
x X device \(ti deri
n12000 0
x trailer
V792000
x stop
.output and \! are now out of cnronological order.
In gropdf I used to rely on manual "asciifying" of parameters, the new gropdf
does not, in order to support unicode (passed as \[uXXXX]) I need it to be
passed untouched.so it can be converted to UTF-16 by gropdf itself (also
applies to any special chars - \(xx \[xxx] \C'xxx' \N'nnn'). It also needs to
maintain chronological order.
I don't know whether the pdfmark macros rely on the asciifying behaviour of \X
or not.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64484>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
