> to attact mor users:
> what is about a section "Solutions" on the webpage?
>
> just little programms that helps to make output nice, something like
> that?
>
> btw: Documentation/FAQ on that page would be nice also.
Do you volunteer? Patches are highly welcomed.
Werner
Thank you Denis, This has been a really useful suggestion.
Miklos
On 20/10/2009, at 03:18 AM, Denis M. Wilson wrote:
As another retired gentleman, I have considered making
contributions to groff; eg when it was orphaned I thought
of offering to maintain TBL, which I use extensively (even
for
As another retired gentleman, I have considered making
contributions to groff; eg when it was orphaned I thought
of offering to maintain TBL, which I use extensively (even
for purposes for which it was never intended -- such a
versatile tool!). Then the thought of relearning C++ was too
much...
R
> As a retired gentleman I planned to help a bit.
Great!
> Unfortunately Mr blazing cancer intervened and left me with some
> 35,000 lines of PS-Perl-groff source to document. If I can finish
> the job, there will be many groff routines to do good graphics.
> More likely than not, all will go t
On 17/10/2009, at 07:02 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I consider the groff mailing as a kind of archive which collects
useful tips regarding the troff suite. Your tar bundle is part of
that bundle.
I appreciate that. But I don't think that it would inspire people to
write directly to the archi
Werner LEMBERG schrieb:
>>> I consider the groff mailing as a kind of archive which collects
>>> useful tips regarding the troff suite. Your tar bundle is part of
>>> that bundle.
>> I appreciate that. But I don't think that it would inspire people to
>> write directly to the archive.
>
> Well,
>> I consider the groff mailing as a kind of archive which collects
>> useful tips regarding the troff suite. Your tar bundle is part of
>> that bundle.
>
> I appreciate that. But I don't think that it would inspire people to
> write directly to the archive.
Well, yes. Material like your bundle
On 16/10/2009, at 05:30 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Nevertheless I spent a few weeks on this integration thing and
produced a longish report on what can be done and how, and gave an
example. Graphics, far more complex than what you can hope from
pic, embedded in groff. I haven't got a single
> Nevertheless I spent a few weeks on this integration thing and
> produced a longish report on what can be done and how, and gave an
> example. Graphics, far more complex than what you can hope from
> pic, embedded in groff. I haven't got a single answer, apart from
> the usual thing: this file
On 15/10/2009, at 11:50 PM, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
:
:
And I
believe the work everyone contributes to this list is well
appreciated.
This situation and attitudes towards groff is a lot more complex than
this.
In my professional life needed a lot of high level Math and graphics
ga
Further to my previous post, first here is a revision of
the .PS and .PE macros in the 'ms' macro set which allow
the use of ".PS T" so as to (effectively) suppress any
effect on the printed page. It is assumed that no drawing
is done during a call to ".PS T <> .PE".
--8<-- cut here --
> First: I didn't want to offend anyone.
>
> I'm glad, groff is there and I like it very much. Contributing
> is good, and I would if, I'd be actually able to. To state this
> isn't a hollow phrase, I reworked the troff and groff-articles
> in the german wikipedia a time ago. This is not much but
Am 15.10.2009 um 12:51 schrieb Tadziu Hoffmann:
See? That's exactly the issue. Of course it's easy to say
"why do we have to put up with such crude limitations in
current software", but unless someone is pissed enough
to decide to fix it (or someone decides it's fun to do
something new), thin
> Perhaps someone else will?
See? That's exactly the issue. Of course it's easy to say
"why do we have to put up with such crude limitations in
current software", but unless someone is pissed enough
to decide to fix it (or someone decides it's fun to do
something new), things stay as they are.
Hello Werner,
Am 15.10.2009 um 11:48 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
I am pretty stunned. It's not clear to me why current software has
such crude limitations with one must circumvent with even more crude
wordarounds.
TeX is even worse...
Maybe, but the goal is to make it better and not to excuse
> I am pretty stunned. It's not clear to me why current software has
> such crude limitations with one must circumvent with even more crude
> wordarounds.
TeX is even worse...
> What about enhancing groff and trowing out these limitations? At
> least in non-compatible mode there should be no pr
> Hello, in real world this is sooo easy:
>
> h = 105,5 mm
> w = h *0.36
>
> In groff world 105.5 and 0.36 needs to come in centimeters,
> then some correction needs to be applied.
Well, in the simple case above, 0.36 does *not* need to come in
centimeters. It is a simple numerical factor. The
Hi,
Am 14.10.2009 um 23:57 schrieb (Ted Harding):
The result of the above is that the number register \n[wnumber]
is set to 107659 which is the truncated value of the number of
"u" in 105.5*0.36mm namely 107659.8425197 (as shown by the value
of \*[wstring]), so you have lost precision to the ex
On 14-Oct-09 11:12:19, Miklos Somogyi wrote:
> Hello, in real world this is sooo easy:
>
> h = 105,5 mm
> w = h *0.36
>
> In groff world 105.5 and 0.36 needs to come in centimeters, then some
> correction needs to be applied.
>
> Let's say that h is already done and contains roughly 300,000u.
19 matches
Mail list logo
