On 19-Sep-07 19:52:36, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:40 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> > Actually, it is documented:
>> >
>> > Page 7:
>> > - \Z Z, any character not listed above
>
> Er, documented where? (i.e. what document are you citing, where this
> page 7 may be foun
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 07:40 +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > Actually, it is documented:
> >
> > Page 7:
> > - \Z Z, any character not listed above
Er, documented where? (i.e. what document are you citing, where this
page 7 may be found)?
It certainly isn't consistent with this, (from the `
> Actually, it is documented:
>
> Page 7:
> - \Z Z, any character not listed above
>
> Therefore, \_ would become _,
This is not correct: `_' and `\_' are two *different* glyphs!
Werner
Actually, it is documented:
Page 7:
- \Z Z, any character not listed above
Therefore, \_ would become _, and \@ would become @, and \[ SHOULD become [
(but only in -C compatibility mode in groff)
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>
> I've just rediscovered that groff defines `\_', which is equival
I've just rediscovered that groff defines `\_', which is equivalent to
`\[ul]', the underline character. Clarke writes the following in the
NEWS file (for version 0.6):
The `\_' character is now automatically translated to `\(ul' as in
troff.
Funnily, this is documented neither in Kernighan
