On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:49:37PM -0700, Clarke Echols wrote: > [...]
> I was somewhat hesitant to really accept the longer names > allowed by groff because I usually prefer "backwards > compatibility", but after taking advantage of it, I find it > very nice in terms of keeping macros readable when I create or > modify them. > [...] > > HOWEVER, if groff can be compiled and run on HP-UX, > groff-oriented man pages will also need to be installed in the > usual directories on HP-UX systems, and HP-UX users will expect > to be able to run the man command on those pages. > > THEREFORE, I think it would be wise to avoid using macro, > string, or other entity names in gnu man page macros that > violate the 2-character rule. Same applies to me and ms > macros. If you want to use expanded-length names in a macro > package, it should have a different name so the user doesn't > expect it to run under nroff(1) on HP-UX/Solaris/AIX systems. > I used to believe something similar to this myself, but I have since reevaluated those beliefs. There really isn't any reason to be using (much less paying for) the traditional DWB these days. There are at least two much better solutions. There is, of course, groff, with which we are all familiar. Additionally, Gunnar has taken the traditional troff and turned it into a really spectacular tool, It does long names like groff, and can also format a paragraph at a time, like TeX, as well as other improved typesetting functions. Both of these are free and compile on HP-UX/Solaris/AIX; why would anyone want to still be using AT&T troff? Of course, people *are* still using it, but my guess is that those installations are pretty much hidebound and won't be updating their man pages, much less using the type of browser-base man page viewing that Eric is advocating. Those HP-UX/Solaris/AIX installations not experiencing heat death need merely install one of the (much improved) typesetters to take advantage of the improved functionality that we've been discussing. In terms of the present discussion, *if* they have groff man pages installed *then* they will almost certainly have groff installed and the System Administrator can configure man to use it. I don't think we should go out of our way to break compatibility with these systems, but I also don't think we should take extraordinary measures to ensure that the new macros will be compatible with those installations that probably won't use them anyway. In practical terms, this means that we should use two-character macro names in the new general purpose macros we define (like SY and OP) but not worry about changing long macro names in existing man pages. Let's face it, the systems using the traditional troff won't be displaying those pages anyway. jcs _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
