Re: [Groff] What is the current state of Unicode support in Groff?

Hi Mike, > I've not kept up with the current Unicode state of groff. > Any enlightenment would be appreciated. groff(1) has a -k option (and -K) that kicks off preconv(1) as a preprocessor for the input. $ echo Local currency is the £. | preconv .lf 1 - Local currency is the \[u00A3]

[Groff] What is the current state of Unicode support in Groff?

While verifying Kernighan's Lemma with him, Brian mentioned: I used groff about 3-4 years ago for a new book (advt below, in case I haven't already spammed you). It all worked pretty well, though there were a lot of bandaids to handle indexing, contents, PDF, etc. I'm in

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:07:51PM +0200, Carsten Kunze wrote: > - Original Nachricht > Von: Mike Bianchi > > > In troff, the number of / characters necessary to output a single > > / character grows exponentially with macro depth. > > Ok, but should we consider fields a

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

Sounds about right to me, though my troff/groff expertise has atrophied quite a bit over the last 20 years. Brian On Mon, 1 Sep 2014, Mike Bianchi wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Blake McBride wrote: I found that Groff and Heirloom handle backslashes in tables differently. I

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

- Original Nachricht Von: Mike Bianchi > In troff, the number of / characters necessary to output a single >/ character grows exponentially with macro depth. Ok, but should we consider fields as macros? I had not expcted up to now that fields reduce \\ to \. And

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

Hi, Ted wrote: > WHile not quite sure about the details of the logic underlying the > effect you describe It's quite involved, as I recall. This bit of groff's manual seems relevant. $ info groff 2>/dev/null | sed -n '/-- Escape: /,/=> 1/p' | cat -s -- Escape: \\ -- Escape: \e

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Blake McBride wrote: > I found that Groff and Heirloom handle backslashes in tables differently. > I actually think both are wrong, but I am not sure. My input is as > follows: > > .TS > a a . > INPUT PRODUCES > \\ > abc def > .TE > > > > I am pr

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

- Original Nachricht Von: Blake McBride An: groff mailinglist Datum: 01.09.2014 06:25 Betreff: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes > I am processing it with tbl & troff but no macro packages. They produce > different results - both unexpected by me. What

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

- Original Nachricht Von: "(Ted Harding)" An: groff mailinglist Datum: 01.09.2014 10:00 Betreff: Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes > WHile not quite sure about the details of the logic underlying > the effect you describe, I think that your first lin

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

On 01-Sep-2014 04:25:28 Blake McBride wrote: > I found that Groff and Heirloom handle backslashes in tables differently. > I actually think both are wrong, but I am not sure. My input is as > follows: > > .TS > a a . > INPUT PRODUCES > \\ > abc def > .TE > > > > I am processing it with t

Re: [Groff] [Groff & Heirloom] tbl problem with backslashes

> I am processing it with tbl & troff but no macro packages. They produce > different results - both unexpected by me. What I am trying to produce is > as follows: > > INPUTPRODUCES > \\ \ > abc def I look into this. But you may use \e instead of \\ (for input). I think it's a