Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:10:22 +0200 Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Take a large manual, for example ksh(1). > With the mandoc-based implementation of man(1), type > > $ man ksh > > Then inside less(1), type > > :t read > > to jump straight to the description of the "read" builtin command, That's

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

Hi Ralph, Ralph Corderoy wrote on Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 06:34:08PM +0100: > Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> Then inside less(1), type >> >> :t read > Does that use less's LESSGLOBALTAGS environment variable to look > up the tag? No. The formatter uses the semantic markup to write a /tmp file in ctags

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

Hi Ingo, > Then inside less(1), type > > :t read Does that use less's LESSGLOBALTAGS environment variable to look up the tag? Cheers, Ralph.

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

Hi Werner, Werner LEMBERG wrote on Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:05:05PM +0200: > Ingo Schwarze wrote: >> Werner LEMBERG wrote: >>> However, `info' is the official GNU documentation format, and its >>> indexing system is quite good, something groff's output formats >>> don't provide. >> Actually, mdoc

Re: [Groff] groff info(1).

> FSF have made exceptions to things in the past, I wonder if a > document formatter having its documentation in its own format could > be one? Stallman may agree. :-) This is a challenge for the next maintainer :-) Werner

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

>> However, `info' is the official GNU documentation format, and its >> indexing system is quite good, something groff's output formats >> don't provide. > > Actually, mdoc(7) indexing is more powerful than info(1) indexing: > > http://man.openbsd.org/?query=Ft,Fa~[ug]id_t&apropos=1 > > Docum

[Groff] groff info(1). (Was: .if !dTS - GNU extension?)

Hi Doug, > Yes. I am very glad for those pages. They are so good that I had not > been conscious of the info files, which you so aptly call "canonical", > not "primary" as many maddeningly incomplete Gnu man pages do--a daily > reminder that Gnu's Not Unix. Whilst on the topic, I read/search grof

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

>> I always tried to maintain well-written man pages that covers >> everything of groff > > Yes. I am very glad for those pages. They are so good that I had not > been conscious of the info files, which you so aptly call > "canonical", not "primary" as many maddeningly incomplete Gnu man > page

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

>>> The canonical documentation, BTW, are the groff info files >> How ironic! > I always tried to maintain well-written man pages that covers > everything of groff Yes. I am very glad for those pages. They are so good that I had not been conscious of the info files, which you so aptly call "ca

Re: [Groff] .if !dTS - GNU extension?

Hi, Werner LEMBERG wrote on Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 07:05:01AM +0200: > Doug McIlroy wrote: >> Werner LEMBERG wrote: >>> The canonical documentation, BTW, are the groff info files >> How ironic! > Yes :-) However, `info' is the official GNU documentation format, > and its indexing system is quite