Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread M Bianchi
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > >From HP's "Text Formatting User's Guide" (ca. 1991): > > > > [...] > > > > This was already there in the "PWB/MM Programmer's Workbench > > Memorandom Macros", D.W. Smith and J.R. Mashey, October 1977. > > > > So there only

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread Clarke Echols
>From HP's "Text Formatting User's Guide" (ca. 1991): If the second argument is specified, automatically-numbered footnotes begin again with 1 whenever a first-level heading is encountered. This is most useful with the "section-page" page numbering scheme. As an example, the input line

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread Gunnar Ritter
M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the "right" answer it to document what the current macro package does You seem to refer to your variant, since there are multiple "current" ones in existence (at least yours, Sun's, and mine). By the way, does the groff_mm documentation describe whi

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread M Bianchi
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:10:04PM +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > Bob Diertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This was already there in the "PWB/MM Programmer's Workbench Memorandom > > Macros", D.W. Smith and J.R. Mashey, October 1977. > > > > So there only a bug in the groff_mm manual page. > >

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread Gunnar Ritter
Bob Diertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This was already there in the "PWB/MM Programmer's Workbench Memorandom > Macros", D.W. Smith and J.R. Mashey, October 1977. > > So there only a bug in the groff_mm manual page. > > The same document also mentions the names used by PWB/MM in the chapter >

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> > >From HP's "Text Formatting User's Guide" (ca. 1991): > > [...] > > This was already there in the "PWB/MM Programmer's Workbench > Memorandom Macros", D.W. Smith and J.R. Mashey, October 1977. > > So there only a bug in the groff_mm manual page. Michael, can you take care of updating the do

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-20 Thread Bob Diertens
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:48:58PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > > Well, there's specifying a second argument to the FD macro > > which causes the footnote counter to get reset at each > > first-level heading, but that appears to be just as > > undocumented. > > >From HP's "Text Formatting Us

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-19 Thread Tadziu Hoffmann
> Well, there's specifying a second argument to the FD macro > which causes the footnote counter to get reset at each > first-level heading, but that appears to be just as > undocumented. >From HP's "Text Formatting User's Guide" (ca. 1991): If the second argument is specified, automatically-n

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-18 Thread Luke Kendall
Larry Jones wrote: > Werner LEMBERG writes: >> I assume there wasn't any other, `official' possibility to >> reset the footnote counter, right? > > Well, there's specifying a second argument to the FD macro which causes > the footnote counter to get reset at each first-level heading, but that > ap

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-18 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > Keith Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's a genuine troff mm-ism. E.g. we found out about it from the > > > book by Narain Gehani (of AT&T) "Document Formatting and > > > Typesetting on the UNIX System", ISBN 0 -9615336-0-9 (highly > > > recommended, BTW). >

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Larry Jones
Werner LEMBERG writes: > > I assume there wasn't any other, `official' possibility to > reset the footnote counter, right? Well, there's specifying a second argument to the FD macro which causes the footnote counter to get reset at each first-level heading, but that appears to be just as undocume

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Gunnar Ritter
Keith Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's a genuine troff mm-ism. E.g. we found out about it from the book > > by Narain Gehani (of AT&T) "Document Formatting and Typesetting on the > > UNIX System", ISBN 0 -9615336-0-9 (highly recommended, BTW). > > This may establish `prior art', but i

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Jon Snader
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:57:06PM +0100, Keith Marshall wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 17:33 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > So I ask the question of the group: > > > > > > Do we want to implement "backward compatibility" of > > > undocumented things like the number register :p in >

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Keith Marshall
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 17:33 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > So I ask the question of the group: > > > > Do we want to implement "backward compatibility" of > > undocumented things like the number register :p in > > the groff package? > > > > I vote no. As do I. > Hmm. What to

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Nick Stoughton
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 00:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 16-Sep-07 22:15:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> > I don't think classic troff mm's ":p" has ever been in groff's mm, > >> > which has used "ft*nr" as long as I've known it (about 1990)! > >> > >> The obvious "solution" to that "proble

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread M Bianchi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:50:28PM +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:52:04AM +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > > > : > > > All variants of the original -mm which I have seen so far > > > have been very similar. It is likely that they

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Gunnar Ritter
M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:52:04AM +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > > : > > All variants of the original -mm which I have seen so far > > have been very similar. It is likely that they all use the > > :p register in the same way. > > One definition of

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> So I ask the question of the group: > > Do we want to implement "backward compatibility" of undocumented > things like the number register :p in the groff package? > > I vote no. Hmm. What to do in situations where the `inofficial' way was the only choice? I assume there wasn't

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread M Bianchi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:52:04AM +0200, Gunnar Ritter wrote: > : > All variants of the original -mm which I have seen so far > have been very similar. It is likely that they all use the > :p register in the same way. One definition of backward compatibility is "All Bugs Are Preserv

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread M Bianchi
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:25:20AM +0100, Ted Harding wrote: > On 16-Sep-07 22:15:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> > I don't think classic troff mm's ":p" has ever been in groff's mm, > >> > which has used "ft*nr" as long as I've known it (about 1990)! > >> > >> The obvious "solution" to that "probl

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-17 Thread Luke Kendall
(Ted Harding) wrote: > On 16-Sep-07 22:15:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: I don't think classic troff mm's ":p" has ever been in groff's mm, which has used "ft*nr" as long as I've known it (about 1990)! >>> The obvious "solution" to that "problem" is to add: >>> >>> .als :p ft*nr >>> >>> t

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-16 Thread Larry Jones
Ralph Corderoy writes: > > In particular, it seems :C is used to indicate :p should be reset on a > `.H 1'. Which groff's mm spells ft*clear-at-header; perhaps yet another alias is in order. It's set if .FD is called with two arguments (although the meaning of the second argument doesn't seem to

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-16 Thread Gunnar Ritter
(Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have access to macro files for other troffs at the > moment, but I've browsed around in such documentation as > I can find, without seeing a reference to a number register > ":p" in mm.

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-16 Thread Ralph Corderoy
Hi Ted, > I would like to suggest that, before anything is done generally in > groff, we should get to the bottom of where this ":p" is coming from. I agree. Google's Code Search finds some interesting stuff. Not all -mm, but still. http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=%22nr+%3Ap%22 In par

Re: [Groff] RE: Small bug in groff 1.19.2 footnote number contro

2007-09-16 Thread Ted Harding
On 16-Sep-07 22:15:55, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> > I don't think classic troff mm's ":p" has ever been in groff's mm, >> > which has used "ft*nr" as long as I've known it (about 1990)! >> >> The obvious "solution" to that "problem" is to add: >> >> .als :p ft*nr >> >> to the mm macros like i