> > Yes. Though it contains device-dependent troff output. :-) >
Aye, but most folks would find that less confusing than a format named after a fish <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout>… ;-) > The ‘dit’ suffix is probably what I've seen the most. > Same, although I personally prefer to use .ditroff for long-term storage of ditroff source (say, a fixture tracked by version control). > Also, the ‘out’ seems wrong. So many files are the output of something yet > don't have that in their suffix. a.out seems to have that honour as it > nabbed it first. Agreed. I also see *.out and *.err files generated by unit-tests that dump their stdout and stderr streams (respectively). On a related note, I used to use .out as the file-extension of Roff.js's test-fixtures. I later regretted that when I added fixtures for Osanna troff's output (raw binary containing C/A/T driver instructions). Though in hindsight, *.cat was probably a better choice of extension… On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 02:48, Ralph Corderoy <ra...@inputplus.co.uk> wrote: > Hi John, > > > I've always just called it "ditroff" (*"device-independent troff > > [output]"*), with *.dit and *.ditroff being my typical choice of file > > extensions. > > The ‘dit’ suffix is probably what I've seen the most. > > > I'm aware that it's a reappropriation of an obsolete name for all > > post-Osanna troff(1) implementations, but its meaning is clearer to > > readers familiar with the term *"device-independent [gt]roff output"*. > > Yes. Though it contains device-dependent troff output. :-) > > > The names "grout" and "trout", OTOH, are a lot less obvious. > > Also, the ‘out’ seems wrong. So many files are the output of something > yet don't have that in their suffix. a.out seems to have that honour as > it nabbed it first. > > The file contains a rendering of the troff for a device. > In case that helps trigger better suggestions. > > -- > Cheers, Ralph. > >
