Thank you, Steffen and Werner! Although the text-variant characters
are adjacent to their vanilla counterparts, I believe adding the ***
clarifies the purpose of having the text variants at all.
Hi.
Dave Kemper wrote:
|On 12/15/15, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> I think the attached should do so.
|
|Thanks, Steffen! Once this is applied to git, I'll create a patch
|with my originally suggested enhancement.
The attached may do, then. (With some manual intervention.)
(And regarding my
> The attached may do, then.
Applied also, thanks!
Werner
> I think the attached should do so.
Thanks a lot, now applied to the repository!
Werner
On 12/15/15, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> I think the attached should do so.
Thanks, Steffen! Once this is applied to git, I'll create a patch
with my originally suggested enhancement.
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|> I wonder what those "+" markers are for, they have been added in
|> [48615a4].
|
|Uh, oh, a lot of them are lost :-( As documented in the man page, they
|indicate that the (two-letter) glyph name is documented in the
|original troff manual.
It seems i have searched
> I wonder what those "+" markers are for, they have been added in
> [48615a4].
Uh, oh, a lot of them are lost :-( As documented in the man page, they
indicate that the (two-letter) glyph name is documented in the
original troff manual.
I fear that Bernd won't be able to fix this due to personal
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|Please restore the markers.
I think this should be it regarding ***.
--steffen
diff --git a/man/groff_char.man b/man/groff_char.man
index f393578..edd3792 100644
--- a/man/groff_char.man
+++ b/man/groff_char.man
@@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ right angle bracket
T}
\[bv] \e[bv]
Hello.
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|> It seems more likely, though, that these markers were erroneously
|> removed during the rather extensive changes introduced in this
|> commit -- surely the point about the font metrics for these glyphs
|> remains true. Bernd?
|
|Please restore the markers.
Dave Kemper wrote:
|On 11/23/15, Dave Kemper wrote:
|> groff_char does seem to address this issue regarding other glyphs. It
|> says, "Entries marked with `***' denote glyphs for mathematical
|I was finally going to do this but hit a snag: it turns out commit
|07a6233adeb476611f7a286295935
> It seems more likely, though, that these markers were erroneously
> removed during the rather extensive changes introduced in this
> commit -- surely the point about the font metrics for these glyphs
> remains true. Bernd?
Please restore the markers.
Werner
On 11/23/15, Dave Kemper wrote:
> groff_char does seem to address this issue regarding other glyphs. It
> says, "Entries marked with `***' denote glyphs for mathematical
> purposes (mainly used for DVI output). Normally, such glyphs have
> metrics which make them unusable in normal text." This
> If my supposition above is correct, I'll create a patch to add the
> *** marker to the four glyphs in question.
Great!
> Also, both the mathematical and text glyph of each pair have the
> same Unicode value, and groff seems to interpret the Unicode strings
> as the mathematical-context version
> \[t{no,+-,mu,di}] should be used in textual, \[{no,+-,mu,di}] in
> mathematical context. Normally, the latter glyphs are special glyphs
> (this is, in font `S'), and its vertical offsets make them not blend
> well into surrounding text.
Hi Werner,
groff_char does seem to address this issue reg
> What's the purpose of the \[tno], \[t+-], \[tmu], and \[tdi]
> characters?
>
> groff_char(7) documents these characters as "text variants" of,
> respectively, \[no], \[+-], \[mu], and \[di], but provides no hints
> about when one might want to use the text variant characters and
> when the trad
What's the purpose of the \[tno], \[t+-], \[tmu], and \[tdi] characters?
groff_char(7) documents these characters as "text variants" of,
respectively, \[no], \[+-], \[mu], and \[di], but provides no hints
about when one might want to use the text variant characters and when
the traditional version
16 matches
Mail list logo
