On Tue 27 May 2014 19:55:34 Bernd Warken wrote:
> The following characters can't be shown with groff_char.man:
>
> \[.j] \e[.j] dotlessju0237 j without a dot
> \[vA] \e[vA] uni21D5 u21D5 vertical double arrow in
both directions
> \[-+] \e[-+] uni2213 u2213 minus-plus
> \[coproduc
The notes in `groff_char.7' are complete now, that makes this
man-page into a useful information center.
The man-page `groff.7' has a section about `special characters'.
This section is not really useful. It is far from being complete.
I see the following kinds of improvement:
1) Omit all exampl
The following characters can't be shown with groff_char.man:
\[.j] \e[.j] dotlessju0237 j without a dot
\[vA] \e[vA] uni21D5 u21D5 vertical double arrow in both directions
\[-+] \e[-+] uni2213 u2213 minus-plus
\[coproduct]\e[coproduct] uni2210 u2210 coproduct
\[u2661
> Von: ted.hard...@wlandres.net
>
> My own feelings about this sort of question is that grog is a
> facility which can have its uses, but is not one which I would
> recommend for general use. The reason is that it sets up a
> command line which is formed in terms of requests that grog
> detects in
On 27-May-2014 15:37:35 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> Why not allowing (not forcing) this additional first line also for
>> every other files written in some `groff' language document?
>
> You rather mean: Why not make groff accept such a line to invoke
> preprocessors?
>
> I think that this approa
The following line is from groff_char.man:
\[vA] \e[vA] uni21D5 u21D5 vertical double arrow in both directions
I couldn't find this character \[vA]. Some idea?
Bernd Warken
> Why not allowing (not forcing) this additional first line also for
> every other files written in some `groff' language document?
You rather mean: Why not make groff accept such a line to invoke
preprocessors?
I think that this approach is too simplistic; for example, it doesn't
allow for prep
> Von: "Werner LEMBERG"
>
> > Now grog accepts not only the 4 characters, but all 8 from groff's
> > options. That will not hurt anything.
>
> Well, yes, but currently only `man' interprets this comment, and `man'
> exclusively wants a leading ' and nothing else...
>
> > How about handling thi
>> I suggest that grog accepts
>>
>> .\" t
>>
>> under protest only, this is, it emits a warning that the line should
>> be changed to
>>
>> '\" t
>
> The protest of grog will come later.
Thanks.
> Now grog accepts not only the 4 characters, but all 8 from groff's
> options. That will not h
> Von: "Werner LEMBERG"
> Betreff: Re: [Groff] `groff_char.7' works only for `man', but not for `groff'
>
> >> I changed grog, such that lines starting with . (period) or '
> >> (apostrophe) are both regarded as equal (only within `grog').
> >
> > Why? I guess users are more likely rely on man(1
10 matches
Mail list logo
