r crossreferences together with mom? I browsed the archives
> > and found out that e.g. Jon Snader has some xref macros.
>
> I haven't tested this, but I'm almost certain the answer is: not
> without modification, although I'd welcome the opportunity to be
> prov
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:17:45AM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005, Jon Snader wrote:
> > I do have cross reference macros that I use for my books.
>
> > Peter, if you'd like to include them in mom or use them as a
> > starting point, you'
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:08:59PM -0500, Dorai Sitaram wrote:
> I'd like to avoid adjustment (justification) and hyphenation on a document
> but only if it's being processed by nroff.if n). In essence,
>
> .if n .na
> .if n .nh
>
> should hold for every paragraph. What's a robust way to do th
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:33:43PM +0200, Bernd Warken wrote:
>
>
> Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 22.08.05 16:26:08:
> >
> > > Isn't there a possibility to change `groff' such that it is not
> > > necessary to redefine .TS and .TE?
> >
> > Please elaborate.
>
> The `groff' .TS
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 08:11:53AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>
> Uh, oh, I wasn't aware that you use this indeed very nasty strategy
> within pdfroff. As Tadziu suggested in another mail, groff should
> behave like LaTeX (and I was incorrectly assuming that the ms macros
> already do someth
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:53:59AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
>
> The problem with groff's `write' requests is that they don't work,
> if the user fails to specify the `-U' flag, when invoking groff.
>
> This flag activates the so called `unsafe' mode. While it probably
> isn't the case, this
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 02:53:04PM -0400, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
>
> It does work. I use OpenBSD 3.7 every day for all my work.
> He has messed up something on his system.
>
Perhaps he didn't source his .profile/.bashrc after he changed
it.
jcs
__
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 08:49:50PM +0100, Deri James wrote:
>
> I am not persuaded a gui would improve groff adoption (has LyX helped
> LaTex?).
Even if such a GUI were available, who would use it? As Deri
says, LyX is available for LaTeX, and LaTeX probably does a
better job at typesetting tha
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:14:28AM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
>
> I've tried various editors in my time, Emacs among them. But, I
> keep going back to vi, (or (g)vim), for personal choice.
>
In the end, there can be only one.
jcs
___
Groff mailin
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:16:44PM -0400, Larry Kollar wrote:
> Good to see you again, Michael!
>
> > I've a wierd problem I'm trying to track down. Hopefully my
> > explanation will make sense. First, some software versions:
> > MacIntosh OS X version 10.4.5 running groff 1.19.1 and gv 3.6.1
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:32:00AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> I have a design document that I need to output in two forms: as a
> properly typeset PostScript file (troff) and in plain text (nroff). I
> want the latter not to have page breaks. I've tried a number of
> things, but I have t
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:02:11PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Gunnar, Linux man(1) can do this *now*. I added the code myself over a
> year ago. All that's needed is for HTML pages to be in the right
> places under /usr/man and it's game over. Of course, if you were
> insistent on a cra
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 12:03:14PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Your thinking is intelligent and cogent -- but your factual
> premise is wrong, leading you to an incorrect model of my
> assumptions. On my usual desktop arrangement, rendering man
> pages in a browser *would* in fact have the
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:26:38PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > For me, and I think many others,
> > getting a man page in an editor window does make sense and I
> > wouldn't want to lose that ability.
>
> I agreed with you about this last time. I still don't see
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
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:57:06PM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 17:33 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > So I ask the question of the group:
> > >
> > > Do we want to implement "backward compatibility" of
> > > undocumented things like the number register :p in
>
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Larry Kollar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a program to generate signdling diagrams out there? I sure could
> use one right now
>
> -- Larry
>
>
>
What kind of signaling diagrams? Trains, cells, ...? For some
applications, I've found Graphviz makes an ex
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
[snip]
> What do you think about enabling this bizarre behaviour of `em' only
> in compatibility mode? As already mentioned, I can't think of any
> useful application. This would save us from introducing the proposed
> `em1' request.
It
18 matches
Mail list logo
