> Wow, there were so many masters of troff/groff answering my stupid
> question. Thanks a lot.
It's not a stupid question at all. You are the first one who has ever
reported this problem.
> [...] I found the problem is caused by the old ``mmt'' macro
> shipped with OpenSolaris.
Aah.
> I foun
Miklos Somogyi wrote:
I am trying to produce a macro for request blm that would set space
as a given fraction of the current vertical spacing.
I did the following:
---
.de blank
. nr blankreg (c;\\$1) this
wo
> * groff produces wrapper macros for `ms' and friends which call the
> system's original macros. Then, to get groff's ms macro package I
> have to use `-mgs' instead `-ms'. Can I avoid this?
>
> Yes. Configure and compile groff as usual, but install it with
>
> make install tm
> This is a feature of the original mm macro set, intended to show where
> to cut a continuous sheet of paper into individual pages!
Hi Nick,
Ok, I see, thanks. Then, how can I disable this feature when I use
mm of traditional troff?\*F
.FS
Sorry for asking a question not about groff in a groff
> This is a feature of the original mm macro set, intended to show where
> to cut a continuous sheet of paper into individual pages!
By the way, after reading code of mmt macro, I have found an *ugly* way
to disable this feature, disabling macro )k that generates the output of
two short bars. Th
> I know I'm coming in late, but there are two things I'd do
> differently: set a default and use relative spacing (v)
> instead of machine units (u).
>
> .de blank_aux
> . if !rblankreg .nr blankreg 0.4v
> . sp \\n[blankreg]u
> ..
> .blm blank_aux
>
> Replace the 0.4v above with whatever you want
> By the way, after reading code of mmt macro, I have found an *ugly* way
> to disable this feature, disabling macro )k that generates the output of
> two short bars. The problem is many other macros use )k, I don't know
> what other feature will be broken by doing this. Could you please tel
On 15-Nov-08 21:50:15, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
>> I know I'm coming in late, but there are two things I'd do
>> differently: set a default and use relative spacing (v)
>> instead of machine units (u).
>>
>> .de blank_aux
>> . if !rblankreg .nr blankreg 0.4v
>> . sp \\n[blankreg]u
>> ..
>> .blm blank
> .de blank_aux
> .sp \\n[.v]u/10u*4u
> ..
> .blm blank_aux
This is exactly the working principle of Miklos's solution --
multiply the *current* vertical spacing by some factor -- only
that he wanted this factor (4/10 in your example) configurable,
and not hardcoded in the macro, so that he could
