Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The previous stuff on my agenda is done, [...]
>
> Please add a ChangeLog entry! I insist on having entries for
> everything which isn't trivial (e.g., fixing typos in comments or
> documentation).
A catchup entry is done, and will be in my next commit.
Hi,
I was wondering whether anyone knows of the whereabouts of a chess
font which is compatible with groff? Preferably with tiny example :-)
I've tried google but it seems to have drawn a blank.
regards,
Gaius
On 02-Feb-07 Gaius Mulley wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering whether anyone knows of the whereabouts of a chess
> font which is compatible with groff? Preferably with tiny example :-)
> I've tried google but it seems to have drawn a blank.
There are various PostScript Chess fonts around. Try go
Folks,
groff-1.19.2 can't set line thickness for ellipse.
e.g. these two ellipses is exactly same.
.PS
ellipse thick 5
down
ellipse
.PE
Following is the fix.
--- groff-1.19.2-old/src/devices/grodvi/dvi.cpp 2007-02-01
21:31:56.0 -0600
+++ groff-1.19.2/src/devices/grodvi/dvi.cpp
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Werner, I have a couple of minor improvements to the MathML patch;
notably, I've fixed a minor bug in the handling of inline equations
and another that attached an incorrect attribute to . Would
you prefer to receive an incremental patc
> A patch for the eqn manual page is included that explains MathML
> support and its limitations.
Great! Hopefully, I'll find some time today to look into it.
> I had planned to modify groff/doc/groff.texinfo as well, until I
> discovered that the eqn section of that document consists entirely
Hi Ted,
many thanks for the pointers - have found the chess postscript adobe
fonts!
Gaius
maybe you can add this as a little howto to the wiki and/or groff docu ?
re,
wh
Gaius Mulley wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> many thanks for the pointers - have found the chess postscript adobe
> fonts!
>
> Gaius
>
>
>
>
> I have been applying the eyeball test to .SY/.OP/.YS conversions of
> chem.man, grog.man, and the roff2.man pages, and it looks like I
> have managed not to screw the pooch this time. [...]
Some other observations:
. The proper way to write an ellipsis is `.\|.\|.\&', optionally
startin
Here's the current version of an-ext.tmac. To handle trailing
punctuation correctly, I've replaced .MTO and .URL with .MT/.ME and
.UR/.UE, respectively. The syntax is:
.UR url punct
link text
.UE
.MT email-address punct
name
.UE
Still missing is .DS/.DE.
Werner
===
> The above sounds like it should be added to a README or TESTING file
> in the tmac directory, if for no other reason than that the
> usefulness of -ww is not elsewhere documented that I have seen. I
> think I'll make that happen.
Thanks.
> I have been applying the eyeball test to .SY/.OP/.YS
> Looking at the code, it seems to me (being a quite bad C++
> programmer) that the constant use of `if' clauses to select the
> output device is not very elegant. Perhaps this could be
> virtualized, at least to a certain extent? Maybe it's not worth the
> trouble...
I think something similar
Gaius Mulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> many thanks for the pointers - have found the chess postscript adobe
> fonts!
When I heard this request, there sprang into my head full-blown a design
for a troff facility that takes sections like this:
.CH
rnbqkbnr
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Here's the current version of an-ext.tmac. To handle trailing
> punctuation correctly, I've replaced .MTO and .URL with .MT/.ME and
> .UR/.UE, respectively. The syntax is:
>
> .UR url punct
> link text
> .UE
>
> .MT email-address punct
> name
>
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
. It's better to say
.B "foo bar baz"
instead of
.B foo bar baz
Reasons:
(a) it's processed faster (no issue today, but...)
(b) it works with old troff also (which has a limit of
9 macro arguments)
Actually the limit was
> A suggestion: Arguments to .UE and .ME, if any, should be glued on
> to the end of the output.
Is there a reason for that? What exactly do you have in mind? In
other macro pairs .TS/.TE, .TE doesn't take arguments either...
> Also, is there some reason .MT/.ME aren't written in terms of .UR/
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I see that you are going to replace \[..] with \(.. -- do we really
> need that? (a) It makes the code more difficult to read. (b) I
> thought that we've agreed on staying with long macros/variables/glyph
> names, and that we currently only `normalize' the ma
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Some other observations:
>
> . The proper way to write an ellipsis is `.\|.\|.\&', optionally
> starting with `\&'. Please don't omit the `\|' -- it looks quite
> ugly in PostScript output if the dots don't have enough horizontal
> separation.
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > A suggestion: Arguments to .UE and .ME, if any, should be glued on
> > to the end of the output.
>
> Is there a reason for that? What exactly do you have in mind? In
> other macro pairs .TS/.TE, .TE doesn't take arguments either...
The case isn't paral
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . If you use a table within a man page, the first line should be
>
> .\" t
Not exactly, it should be
'\" t
At least this is the convention on SunOS, and, following that,
on SVR4 derivatives. (The first reference I can find is in a
SunO
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> . The proper way to write an ellipsis is `.\|.\|.\&', optionally
> starting with `\&'. Please don't omit the `\|' -- it looks quite
> ugly in PostScript output if the dots don't have enough horizontal
> separation.
Do
> OK. Do you think it's worth adding an ellipsis definition to
> an-ext.tmac?
I don't object. What do others think?
> > . Don't use real tabs in tables; use the `tab' keyword to
> > substitute them with, say, `@'.
>
> Can do. Is there any technical reason for this, other than the
> "fut
> You are right about the long names. I clean forgot about this, for
> reasons I'll explain in a moment. I can undo that step easily
> enough if you want.
Well, in case it's really *easy* I would like to have the old forms
back. However, this isn't an urgent issue.
[about virtualization]
I'l
> Not exactly, it should be
>
> '\" t
Thanks! I'll fix up the groff man pages accordingly.
Werner
Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > . The proper way to write an ellipsis is `.\|.\|.\&', optionally
> > starting with `\&'. Please don't omit the `\|' -- it looks quite
> > ugly in PostScript output if the do
> > (b) it works with old troff also (which has a limit
> > of 9 macro arguments)
> >
> Actually the limit was 6 macro arguments for man macros
> in the 1980s.
Old troff had a general limit of 9 macro arguments. The
limit of 6 arguments you're referring to came about because
the particul
> > Doesn't it look typographically even better as `\|.\|.\|.\&'.
> > I think this is what eqn sequence `. . .' gets translated into.
>
> In general, this depends on language and style guide.
Indeed. Within groff, James always has used .\|.\|. for situations
like
1, 2, ...
(and this is basic
> banana, orange,
> .UR http://www.kumquat.com
> kumquat
> .UE ,
> apple
>
> To me the second looks much more natural.
This looks very convincing. I suggest to append first the second
argument of .UR, then the (single) argument of .UE.
What do others think? Or shall we drop the second argume
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Just look at this example:
>
> .TS
> tab (@);
> r r.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> xxx @yyy
> .TE
>
> this gives
>
> xxx yyy
> xxx yyy
That's clear enough. The trailing spaces interact badly with 'r'
justification. Similarly, leading spac
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > You are right about the long names. I clean forgot about this, for
> > reasons I'll explain in a moment. I can undo that step easily
> > enough if you want.
>
> Well, in case it's really *easy* I would like to have the old forms
> back. However, this i
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This looks very convincing. I suggest to append first the second
> argument of .UR, then the (single) argument of .UE.
I could live with that...
> What do others think? Or shall we drop the second argument of .UR
> completely?
...but I'd prefer this.
--
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 12:01:45AM +0100, Gunnar Ritter wrote:
> Zvezdan Petkovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:44:10PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > . The proper way to write an ellipsis is `.\|.\|.\&', optionally
> > > starting with `\&'. Please don't om
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 12:13:40AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > Doesn't it look typographically even better as `\|.\|.\|.\&'.
> > > I think this is what eqn sequence `. . .' gets translated into.
> >
> > In general, this depends on language and style guide.
>
> Indeed. Within groff, James
> This implies the full space before the ellipsis, right?
>
> .ds eL .\|.\|.
> 1, 2, \*(eL
>
> instead of what I thought looks less asymmetric
>
> .ds eL \|.\|.\|.
> 1, 2,\*(eL
Yep.
> I might be quite wrong on this, of course. Well, we never stop
> learning. I guess you
> But trailing spaces should be safe with 'l' justification (and
> leading spaces with 'r') except in the odd circumstance that
> the spaces happen to extend past the tab point due to some
> wacky point-size change. I think.
Well, it can make the results uglier. For example, this
.TS
ta
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But trailing spaces should be safe with 'l' justification (and
> > leading spaces with 'r') except in the odd circumstance that
> > the spaces happen to extend past the tab point due to some
> > wacky point-size change. I think.
>
> Well, it can make the
36 matches
Mail list logo
