On Tuesday, 9 July 2019 at 4:30:56 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
>
> Kirill S Sapelkin wrote on Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:19:17PM -0700:
>
>> Just started using groff and mom (had been using LaTeX) for letters so far.
>> So far it seems elegant.
>>
>> Could not find a way to automaticaly
Hi Doug,
Doug McIlroy wrote on Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 11:17:32PM -0400:
> Ingo Schwarze stated incorrectly:
>> EE This is a non-standard GNU extension. In mandoc(1), it does the
>> same as the roff(7) fi request (switch to fill mode).
>>
>> EX This is a non-standard GNU extension. In man
> EE This is a non-standard GNU extension. In mandoc(1), it does the
> same as the roff(7) fi request (switch to fill mode).
>
> EX This is a non-standard GNU extension. In mandoc(1), it does the
> same as the roff(7) nf request (switch to no-fill mode).
"Gnu extension" should be r
On 09/07/19 12:30:56, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
Kirill S Sapelkin wrote on Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:19:17PM -0700:
> Could not find a way to automaticaly insert the date at compile
time other than:
>
> .DATE
> .sy date '+%e %B %Y' > dater
> .so dater
> .sy rm dater
Logically, inserting the date a
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
Logically, inserting the date at compile time doesn't really make sense.
You don't want the date of compiling there, you want the date the letter
was written and originally sent. So there is really value in having the
author enter the date manually.
Hi Kirill,
Kirill S Sapelkin wrote on Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:19:17PM -0700:
> Just started using groff and mom (had been using LaTeX) for letters so far.
> So far it seems elegant.
>
> Could not find a way to automaticaly insert the date at compile time
> other than:
>
> .DATE
> .sy date '+%e
Hello,
Just started using groff and mom (had been using LaTeX) for letters so far.
So far it seems elegant.
Could not find a way to automaticaly insert the date at compile time other than:
.DATE
.sy date '+%e %B %Y' > dater
.so dater
.sy rm dater
This seems to require the -U (unsafe) option in
