On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 07:57:44PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Colin Watson dixit:
> >would mean that line/byte numbers would be wrong, which could be
> >confusing.
>
> They are wrong anyway, as the macro packages count for byte numbers
> too, at least in the iconv example. But still a point: we could just
> wc the macro package first.
Right now they're close enough to be useful, at least for me.
> >mdoc; docj.tmac still has it, commented as "parse argument vector
> >(recursive)". As far as I can tell this was replaced by the
> >doc-parse-args macro, probably in Werner Lemberg's complete rewrite of
> >mdoc in March 2001. However, it wasn't obvious to me how to upgrade your
> >macro.
>
> Interesting… why a rewrite, I wonder.
You'd have to ask Werner. I assume he had a good reason; he doesn't
normally go in for rewrites for the sake of it, as far as I can see.
> But yes, parse argument vector recursively sounds about right. Maybe I
> can use something like this:
> │.if \n(.g \{\
> │.de aV
> │.doc-parse-args \\$1 \\$2 \\$3 \\$4 \\$5 \\$6 \\$7 \\$8 \\$9
> │..
> │.\}
>
> I think this use of a more than two character macro will be tolerated
> by AT&T nroff since it’s if’d out anyway.
>
> The other option would be GNU groff mdoc tmac file upstream considering
> to add back support for the aV macro…
This is beyond me; I recommend asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] for help here. I
don't know whether defining aV to doc-parse-args would be sensible or
not.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
