> I'm wondering, though, if it might make more sense to use:
>
> .ds eL \&.\|.\|.\&
This would be the right definition for a string.
> Whether the .ds is worth the trouble depends on how many times you
> use the ellipsis in a file versus the need to remember another
> string definition. By hand coding, I have absolute control over the
> result and can see what will happen by looking at the inline
> sequence. I also don't have to think about or remember the leading
> \| or \& in the string definition.
Well, having a string definition for the ellipsis has two advantages
. the user doesn't have to fiddle around with the surrounding \& --
I see far too much man pages which have such unprotected full
stops, causing groff to insert two spaces instead of a single one
. the definition could be overridden (for example, with a real
`ellipsis' glyph)
Werner
