> > Hmm, what do you mean with `more serious graphics'? What
> > operation do you have in mind which can't be done with the scheme
> > I propose?
>
> Technically speaking you are absolutely right.
This relieves me :-)
> This is a nice cando masterpiece of true understanding of how gtroff
> works. However, I can't imagine that many users would be prepared
> to go with you on a journey to these internals.
Why should them? Now this macro exists, and its definition can be
found in the mailing list. It's *very* special IMHO what you want to
do.
> Reading-in a file is a basic operation. Having to go through an
> elaborate construction rather than using a simple command would just
> distract them from their original jobs.
Hmm. Reading of files has always been supported. You want reading of
arbitrary data (which groff can't handle directly) into groff
structures. All the years you are the first one who needs that.
> I am just a bit sad that though there is a lot of talent and
> experience around, development is not seen to be a priority
> anywhere. But we have been at this topic a year or so ago, so I
> just shut up.
Development is always a matter of time. As you can see, I'm the only
one basically who does some coding. And sadly, I can't afford much
time for groff these days.
However, even in case I had plenty of time, I don't see the immediate
usefulness of such a facility. My three-part solution is quite
natural IMHO, and not a bad hack from the user's perspective: You
define the preamble and the postamble, and then you load the image.
Honestly, I really don't understand your complaints. You have to
specify the preamble and postamble anyway, haven't you?
Werner
