Hi,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:22:25PM -0400:
> At 2017-04-24T18:29:57+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> G. Branden Robinson wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:41:22AM -0400:
>>> to the more readable (and, I submit, more writable-by-the-novice):
>>>
>>> .TP
>>> .B \-scale \c
At 2017-04-24T18:29:57+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> G. Branden Robinson wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:41:22AM -0400:
>
> > to the more readable (and, I submit, more writable-by-the-novice):
> >
> > .TP
> > .B \-scale \c
> > .IR xfac [, yfac ]
> > Multiply the horizontal and vertical w
Hi,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:41:22AM -0400:
> to the more readable (and, I submit, more writable-by-the-novice):
>
> .TP
> .B \-scale \c
> .IR xfac [, yfac ]
> Multiply the horizontal and vertical window size by
YIKES, that sounds like an absolutely terrible idea!
T
At 2017-04-24T16:22:37+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> .SM affect the next input line as it uses an input trap, `.it'. `\c'
> doesn't make an input line continue to the next as far as input traps
> are concerned; groff has .itc for that. So the .SM is over by the `)'.
That's exactly the hack I wa
Hi Branden,
> .SM
> .B IFS\^\c
> )
>
> I think the intention here was to get back to the normal-size roman
> font after "IFS" without introducing a stretchable space (hence \c)
> but still leave some room between the small bold IFS and the closing
> parenthesis, hance the hair space \^
Hi folks,
The ksh93 man page has the following in its source:
.SS Field Splitting.
After parameter expansion and command substitution,
the results of substitutions are scanned for the field separator
characters (those found in
.SM
.B IFS\^\c
)
and split into distin
Hi,
i think it is clear due to Ralph's extensive analysis that this
whole thing is a mess: Even looking at groff only, for historical
reasons, the input sequences
- \- \(hy \(mi \(en
are handled differently across output devices and across macro sets,
so even using current groff alone
At 2017-04-24T13:08:17+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> > I certainly believe that is the intent of the an and doc macro package
> > authors.
> ...
> > /usr/share/groff/current/tmac/an-old.tmac:681:. char \- \N'45'
> > /usr/share/groff/current/tmac/an-old.tmac:682:. char - \N'45'
>
Hi Branden,
> I certainly believe that is the intent of the an and doc macro package
> authors.
...
> /usr/share/groff/current/tmac/an-old.tmac:681:. char \- \N'45'
> /usr/share/groff/current/tmac/an-old.tmac:682:. char - \N'45'
Yes, but they nobble `-' too, so I could just write a sloppy man
At 2017-04-24T12:16:39+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Judging by the lack of suggestions, I'm assuming `\-' is the best bet to
> get a paste-able ASCII `-'.
I certainly believe that is the intent of the an and doc macro package
authors.
$ grep -n -3 45 /usr/share/groff/current/tmac/{an,doc}*.tmac
Hi Branden,
> and those damned hyphens would show up if the source was wrong.
Right, that's the problem.
$ find /etc/machine-id | nroff | xargs ls
ls: cannot access '/etc/machine‐id': No such file or directory
$
Judging by the lack of suggestions, I'm assuming `\-' is the best bet
At 2017-04-23T12:10:03-0400, Doug McIlroy wrote:
> Interesting difference in habits. I never look at groff-ed man pages
> on line--only the default nroff, which is fine for pasting, and more
> importantly, examinable with a full-featured editor.
A lot of (GNU/)Linux systems these days are configur
12 matches
Mail list logo
