At 2017-05-03T23:51:05+0200, Carsten Kunze wrote:
> Short answer: We should differ manpages and other typesetting.
I don't know if this a tenable position. I agree with several of your
recommendations, but man was never implemented with the capability or
the desire to limit the expressiveness of
Hi Ralph,
I think some context might have gotten lost. As I said at the outset of
this thread, my opinions about the portability of this ".BOLD-ITALIC"
macro are _strictly confined_ to the writing of a non-groff man page for
a highly specialized package that in practice just does not get
installe
> "James K. Lowden" hat am 4. Mai 2017 um 02:13
> geschrieben:
>
> Why not? ISTM we'd have better manpages if they weren't constrained to
> the rendering capability of a VT-100 terminal. For example, equations
> or pictures could augment the text, or replace some of it, when
> "printed".
I
Hi Branden,
> Ingo wrote:
> > There are real-world systems (sold today) where neither \(lq nor the
> > 'c' conditional is supported.
And I know from experience that they become much more palatable after
building source for better versions of their binaries, and adding new
programs they don't have
Hi jkl,
> Carsten Kunze wrote:
> > There are ways to detect the formatter but a manpage must not do
> > this.
>
> Why not? ISTM we'd have better manpages if they weren't constrained
> to the rendering capability of a VT-100 terminal. For example,
> equations or pictures could augment the text
Hi Branden,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:52:42PM -0400:
> Why do my man pages need to be more portable the shell scripts
> or C code I ship with them?
They need not, but i would consider aiming for about the same level
of portability reasonable. Meaning, that they work o
At 2017-05-03T20:13:29-0400, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2017 22:06:10 +0200 (CEST)
> Carsten Kunze wrote:
>
> > There are ways to detect the formatter but a manpage must not do
> > this.
>
> Why not? ISTM we'd have better manpages if they weren't constrained
> to the rendering cap
At 2017-05-04T01:04:48+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Branden,
>
> > .ie c \(lq .ds `` \(lq
> > .el.ds `` ``
> > .ie c \(rq .ds '' \(rq
> > .el.ds '' ''
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> If doesn't work:
>
> $ uname -a
> SunOS unstable11s 5.11 11.2 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterpri
On Wed, 3 May 2017 22:06:10 +0200 (CEST)
Carsten Kunze wrote:
> There are ways to detect the formatter but a manpage must not do
> this.
Why not? ISTM we'd have better manpages if they weren't constrained to
the rendering capability of a VT-100 terminal. For example, equations
or pictures c
Hi Branden,
> .ie c \(lq .ds `` \(lq
> .el.ds `` ``
> .ie c \(rq .ds '' \(rq
> .el.ds '' ''
>
> What do you think?
If doesn't work:
$ uname -a
SunOS unstable11s 5.11 11.2 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
$ cat tmp.roff
.ie c \(lq .ds `` \(lq
.el.ds `` ``
.ie c \(rq .d
Hi,
Carsten Kunze Heirloom wrote on Wed, May 03, 2017 at 09:37:21PM +0200:
> I assume also mandoc(1) reads \(.g as 1.
Yes:
$ echo '\\n(.g' | mandoc | sed -n 5p
1
$ less /co/mdocml/roff.c
int
roff_getreg(const struct roff *r, const char *name)
{
int val;
if ('.' == name[0]
> "G. Branden Robinson" hat am 3. Mai 2017 um
> 22:47 geschrieben:
>
> So ncurses should be gating on the definition of the glyph rather than
> on whether groff is the typesetter, right?
>
> .ie c \(lq .ds `` \(lq
> .el.ds `` ``
> .ie c \(rq .ds '' \(rq
> .el.ds '' ''
>
> What
> John Gardner hat am 3. Mai 2017 um 21:55 geschrieben:
>
>
> Is there literally no way to identify when a modern (non-GNU) troff is
> being used?
General typesetting is something else. Heirloom has this kludge only for
manpages, neatroff (AFAIK not used for manpages) likely does not set .g.
Is there literally no way to identify when a modern (non-GNU) troff is
being used?
On 4 May 2017 at 05:46, Carsten Kunze wrote:
> > Carsten Kunze hat am 3. Mai 2017 um 21:37
> geschrieben:
> >
> > > E.g., ncurses uses these conditionals in many of its pages:
> > >
> > > .ie \n(.g .ds `` \(lq
>
> Carsten Kunze hat am 3. Mai 2017 um 21:37
> geschrieben:
>
> > E.g., ncurses uses these conditionals in many of its pages:
> >
> > .ie \n(.g .ds `` \(lq
> > .el .ds `` ``
> > .ie \n(.g .ds '' \(rq
> > .el .ds '' ''
I overlooked the word ncurses...
Ok, there had been days when th
> "G. Branden Robinson" hat am 3. Mai 2017 um
> 17:30 geschrieben:
>
> Nope. By "private macro" I mean one defined and used only within one
> document.
A manpage is "one document". Or what do you refer to?
> Most \n(.g tests I've seen in man pages are to try to _achieve_
> portability, not br
At 2017-05-03T17:24:41+0200, Carsten Kunze wrote:
> > "G. Branden Robinson" hat am 3. Mai 2017 um
> > 01:02 geschrieben:
> >
> > The .itc request is a groff extension so an additional layer of
> >
> > .ie \(.g
> >
> > could be added.
>
> Where do you want to add this--in the macro package?
N
> "G. Branden Robinson" hat am 3. Mai 2017 um
> 01:02 geschrieben:
>
> The .itc request is a groff extension so an additional layer of
>
> .ie \(.g
>
> could be added.
Where do you want to add this--in the macro package? This would not be
necessary, since it is already groff's own package.
At 2017-05-02T17:47:50+, Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 06:25:29AM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Any advice on how I can improve this? (I'll take "no, don't even try to
> > do this" as read, from those who hate man(7). ;-) )
> >
>
> You did not check the macr
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 06:25:29AM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Any advice on how I can improve this? (I'll take "no, don't even try to
> do this" as read, from those who hate man(7). ;-) )
>
You did not check the macro for errors (correctness, portability)!
> This is a private macro,
20 matches
Mail list logo
