Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gaius, > > > what's the reason to represent special characters of the form \[foo] > as \(foo\) in the `x X' intermediate output command? Why not \[foo] > also? If this is possible, can you change it, please?
Hi Werner, [sorry I missed this email earlier] Yes I see no reason why \[foo] cannot be used - it was originally there to pass glyph names inside "specials" to post-grohtml to allow for URLs to include glyphs rather than just single ascii characters. I can implement this if you wish.. > Reason for the question is my efforts to implement a .device request excellent.. > (almost) equal to \X. All requests which take an arbitrary string > (.write, .ds, etc.) read this argument in `copy mode'. This means > that \[foo] isn't interpreted specially but copied verbatim. I would > like to avoid special code which makes the argument handling of > .device different to similar requests, and having \[foo] in the > intermediate output also makes this possible. > > At a first glance I couldn't find a particular reason for \(foo\)... yes I think this is correct.. regards, Gaius _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
