Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> I need to have (for an html project of mine, which you all know
>> about by now) a stack data structure. I know one *really* klugy way
>> to do it, by having a number register which counts the depth of my
>> stack, and then having a variable which is concatenated to form a
I was looking over the web to see if I could find any notes on how the mm macros
stack implementation (which confused me) worked, when I found the reference to
the manpage groff-www. I hadn't realized it existed, and it showed me a lot of
work by Larry Kollar about stacks, and his code made more s
On December 30, 2009 01:09:07 pm Chuck Robey wrote:
> In a language like groff, anything that works is beautiful.
ROTFL
Elegantly said, Chuck, and true. It ought to be the official motto
of the list.
--
Peter Schaffter
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> On December 30, 2009 01:09:07 pm Chuck Robey wrote:
>> In a language like groff, anything that works is beautiful.
>
> ROTFL
>
> Elegantly said, Chuck, and true. It ought to be the official motto
> of the list.
I've got a friend named TomZ (ex gov't analyst, big iron ma
> I want to reply to both of your mails here in one mail. First,
> constructing the variable names piece by piece and maintaining
> multiple variables to simulate arrays does seem to me to be kludgy.
Mhmm, in TeX you have basically the same limitations. Both groff and
TeX languages are not well
> It sure looks like, if I didn't make a mistake in my test code, then
> it's going to be a whole lot easier to make small fixes in the
> www.tmac than big fixes in mm.tmac, and only have reassignment of
> macros (in the case of -Thtml) in the mm.tmac.
If it suffices, this is, if it compares well
