> Do i understand correctly that the Info manual calls u2260 invalid
> as a glyph name, but that, all the same, \[u2260] produces the
> desired output?
>
> And that groff contains a table to decompose u2260 into u003D_0338,
> but that, all the same, \[u003D_0338] will give you U+2260 in the
> outp
Hi Werner,
Unicode is usually a good tool to cause confusion.
You used it well, i now feel rather confused. :-/
Do i understand correctly that the Info manual calls u2260 invalid
as a glyph name, but that, all the same, \[u2260] produces the
desired output?
And that groff contains a table to dec
>> when there is a unicode character for e.g. "not equal" (U+2260)
>> why there is a combination of characters in groff_char(7)
>> instead of unicode? Is it intended for ASCII output?
>
> 3. In case you are talking about the third column "Unicode"
> in said table, which contains "u003D_0338
Hi Ingo,
thanks for your in-depth answer!
> 3. In case you are talking about the third column "Unicode"
> in said table, which contains "u003D_0338" even though
> groff actually produces U+2260:
> That looks like a documentation bug to me. I'm not
> sending a patch because ther
Hi Carsten,
Carsten Kunze wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:23:00PM +0100:
> when there is a unicode character for e.g. "not equal" (U+2260)
> why there is a combination of characters in groff_char(7)
> instead of unicode? Is it intended for ASCII output?
I'm not completely sure what you intend
On 15-Dec-2014 19:23:00 Carsten Kunze wrote:
> Hello,
>
> when there is a unicode character for e.g. "not equal" (U+2260)
> why there is a combination of characters in groff_char(7) instead
> of unicode? Is it intended for ASCII output?
>
> Carsten
I presume you are referring (e.g.) to the item
Hello,
when there is a unicode character for e.g. "not equal" (U+2260) why there is a
combination of characters in groff_char(7) instead of unicode? Is it intended
for ASCII output?
Carsten
