> It sure looks like, if I didn't make a mistake in my test code, then
> it's going to be a whole lot easier to make small fixes in the
> www.tmac than big fixes in mm.tmac, and only have reassignment of
> macros (in the case of -Thtml) in the mm.tmac.
If it suffices, this is, if it compares well
> I want to reply to both of your mails here in one mail. First,
> constructing the variable names piece by piece and maintaining
> multiple variables to simulate arrays does seem to me to be kludgy.
Mhmm, in TeX you have basically the same limitations. Both groff and
TeX languages are not well
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On December 30, 2009 01:09:07 pm Chuck Robey wrote:
>> In a language like groff, anything that works is beautiful.
>
> ROTFL
>
> Elegantly said, Chuck, and true. It ought to be the official motto
> of the list.
I've got a friend named TomZ (ex gov't analyst, big iron ma
On December 30, 2009 01:09:07 pm Chuck Robey wrote:
> In a language like groff, anything that works is beautiful.
ROTFL
Elegantly said, Chuck, and true. It ought to be the official motto
of the list.
--
Peter Schaffter
I was looking over the web to see if I could find any notes on how the mm macros
stack implementation (which confused me) worked, when I found the reference to
the manpage groff-www. I hadn't realized it existed, and it showed me a lot of
work by Larry Kollar about stacks, and his code made more s
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> I need to have (for an html project of mine, which you all know
>> about by now) a stack data structure. I know one *really* klugy way
>> to do it, by having a number register which counts the depth of my
>> stack, and then having a variable which is concatenated to form a
