Hi, Alex! At 2022-05-09T17:44:01+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Is it possible to represent the following precisely in a manual page?:
Yes. > It's the output of a program that I'd like to represent precisely in > EXAMPLES, but groff(1) doesn't like things like: > > [[ > .EX > .RB $ " echo -e \"\n\nHere's some text.\n\n\nAnd here's some more.\"" > > > Here's some text. > > > And here's some more. > .EE > ]] Right. You'll get warnings about the blank lines if the CHECKSTYLE register is set to 3 or more. Once again the non-printing input break comes to the rescue. Here's how I'd do it. [[ .TH foo 1 2022-05-09 "groff test suite" .P Here is an example. .RS .P .EX $ \c .B printf \[dq]\[rs]n\[rs]nfoo\[rs]n\[rs]n\[rs]n\[rs]n\[rs]nbar\[rs]n\[dq] \& \& foo \& \& \& bar .EE .RE .P That was an example. ]] There are of course many other ways to achieve the same goal, if one strays beyond the portability advice offered in groff_man(7) (to be found in groff_man_style(7) in groff 1.23). In a *roff document that was not a manual page, I'd use the 'sp' request or a macro package's wrapper for it, if one were present. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
