> I couldn't agree more. In many decades of programming engineering
> things I never lost sleep about IEEE compliance. [...]
Friends,
I don't object to adding math functions to groff. Since it won't be
used for typesetting I see no harm. Anyway, there are some obstacles:
. I can't use the
> Perl has no integer arithmetic at all. I may sound scary
> 'cause it is much more oriented to computations than groff,
> but it works admirably. And nobody is up in arms that real
> numbers are in native machine format.
And let's not forget that other prodigious programming language,
employed
I couldn't agree more. In many decades of programming engineering
things I never lost sleep about IEEE compliance.
And I don't intend to do CFD in groff, I just don't want to be
distracted by
the workarounds of doing floats with integers.
Perl has no integer arithmetic at all. I may sound scary
Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
**] And remember there is one fundamental design difference
between groff and TeX: TeX has exactly *one* "device"
(in groff parlance), and we expect exactly the same output
in all implementations. Groff has never had that aim.
On the contrary, output
> > E.g. integer arithmetic etc is a relic from an age long
> > gone, it would be so nice to say good bye to it.
>
> Hmm. Nelson Beebe would raise a lot of objections. He
> regularly tests floating point packages and implementations
> whether they follow the IEEE standards, and there are still
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 4:08 am, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > And you might also consider this, in the bash *shell*:
> >
> > $ dir='~'
> > $ ls $dir
> > ls: ~: No such file or directory
>
> Arguably that's a bug in bash.
Nope. It's completely analogous to:
$ dir='$HOME'
$ echo $dir
On Tuesday, 11 April 2006 at 0:51:07 +0100, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On Monday 10 April 2006 11:19 pm, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> > I'm used to it working in vi(m) and I seem to remember it working
>>> > in awk. I've also seen it work in X11-based file dialogs. Over
>>> > time, I suppose I've com
Miklos Somogyi wrote:
Ditto. Environment variables too. Everything valid to the shell,
should be valid to groff.
Why? User convenience. Shouldn't this be consideration No 1?
Slight problems: which shell, what OS?
That's exactly the point. I can't believe I'm the first to mention
this as a
On Monday 10 April 2006 11:19 pm, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > I'm used to it working in vi(m) and I seem to remember it working
> > > in awk. I've also seen it work in X11-based file dialogs. Over
> > > time, I suppose I've come to assume that ~ was a Un*x idiom rather
> > > than a shell idiom.
> >
> Ditto. Environment variables too. Everything valid to the shell, should
> be valid to groff.
You are joking, aren't you?
> Why? User convenience. Shouldn't this be consideration No 1?
You might provide a patch to groff.info which mentions that ~ does get
expanded...
> Slight problems: which
> > I'm used to it working in vi(m) and I seem to remember it working
> > in awk. I've also seen it work in X11-based file dialogs. Over
> > time, I suppose I've come to assume that ~ was a Un*x idiom rather
> > than a shell idiom.
>
> Agreed; why shouldn't it work in groff? It should be relative
Ditto. Environment variables too. Everything valid to the shell, should
be valid to groff.
Why? User convenience. Shouldn't this be consideration No 1?
Slight problems: which shell, what OS?
Again it raises the question: who is (or whom gnu.org targets as) a
customer?
From my admittedly self
On Sunday, 9 April 2006 at 10:00:25 -0400, Larry Kollar wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG asked, perhaps rhetorically:
>
>> Why on earth do you expect tilde expansion
>> within groff?
>
> I'm used to it working in vi(m) and I seem to remember it working in
> awk. I've also seen it work in X11-based file dia
Werner LEMBERG asked, perhaps rhetorically:
Why on earth do you expect tilde expansion
within groff?
I'm used to it working in vi(m) and I seem to remember it working in
awk. I've also seen it work in X11-based file dialogs. Over time, I
suppose I've come to assume that ~ was a Un*x idiom
Ted's interpretation is also correct for the bash shell used in
cygwin on windows. ~ is used to indicate home directory when
running bash (or any other shell that does the same expansion),
but filename expansion does not occur in any program that is not
equipped to do its own expansion or cannot/
> Sourcing a file like this:
>
> .so ~/Library/XSL/html2ms.xsl
>
> Using either straight groff or soelim, I get the message:
> ./single.ms:207: can't open `~/Library/XSL/html2ms.xsl': No such file
> or directory
>
> It works with an explicit path. Is this a bug or a feature?
A feature,
On 09-Apr-06 Larry Kollar wrote:
> Sourcing a file like this:
>
> .so ~/Library/XSL/html2ms.xsl
>
> Using either straight groff or soelim, I get the message:
> ./single.ms:207: can't open `~/Library/XSL/html2ms.xsl': No such file
> or directory
>
> It works with an explicit path. Is this
Sourcing a file like this:
.so ~/Library/XSL/html2ms.xsl
Using either straight groff or soelim, I get the message:
./single.ms:207: can't open `~/Library/XSL/html2ms.xsl': No such file
or directory
It works with an explicit path. Is this a bug or a feature?
--
Larry Kollar k o
18 matches
Mail list logo
