> Von: "Werner LEMBERG"
>
>
> >> I will move all man-pages where I'm among the authors from FDL to
> >> GPL.
> >
> > Out of curiousity, can you do that without the other authors' explicit
> > agreement?
>
> Actually, the authors have assigned the copyright to the FSF, so Bernd
> has to ask the FSF
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|> i.e., let me write \*[ITEM] even if that was a macro not a string.
|> (Or has something adorable happened since then.)
|
|I don't understand your (probably sarcastic?) comment. That \*[ITEM]
|can call either a macro or a string is a feature which can be useful
|some
[snip]
> do i have to change my version check [...] to 1.20 for this to work?
This has worked for ages already in Unix troff (because macros and
strings share the same namespace), and my guess is in groff as well.
It might just not have been documented.
In man-pages I you the following macro definition:
.\"
.\" .FONT ([ ...])
.\"
.\" Print in different fonts: R, I, B, CR, CI, CB
.\"
.de1 FONT
. if (\\n[.$] = 0) \{\
. nop \&\f[]\&
. return
. \}
. ds result \&
. w
Dear all,
I have tried to convince -mmse into producing a letter to my
liking with Debian, FreeBSD, OpenSolaris, and OpenIndiana,
but they all fail. The immediate problem is that the header
never s printed to the right, position T4, in letter SVH.
Could a friendly soul inform me whether -mmse has
Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
|[snip]
|> do i have to change my version check [...] to 1.20 for this to work?
|
|This has worked for ages already in Unix troff (because macros and
|strings share the same namespace), and my guess is in groff as well.
|It might just not have been documented.
It defi
> |This has worked for ages already in Unix troff (because macros and
> |strings share the same namespace), and my guess is in groff as
> |well. It might just not have been documented.
>
> It definitely wasn't, [...]
Macros called with \* is indeed nothing new. However, having
arguments lik
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|Macros called with \* is indeed nothing new. However, having
|arguments like
|
| \*[foo arg1 arg2 ...]
|
|is what I've added some years ago.
It'll allow me to rewrite terrible code.
|Werner
--steffen
Am 26.01.2013 um 14:05 schrieb Mats Erik Andersson:
Could a friendly soul inform me whether -mmse has falled
behind due to continued development of -mm, or if there
be some other likely cause?
Please provide example source code and the output as PDF. We can help
better, then.
:wq! PoC
Hi Bernd,
Bernd Warken wrote on Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:17:07PM +0100:
> I will move all man-pages where I'm among the authors from FDL to GPL.
>
> Next I will transform all GPL man-pages into the following structure:
[...]
> Near the end of the man-page file the following sections are added:
>
Hello Bernd,
Bernd Warken wrote on Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:44:55PM +0100:
[...]
> Examples:
> .FONT I text1 R text2 I text3 R text4
> is equivalent to .IR text1 text2 text3 text4
I don't particularly like the idea; changing the font for individual
strings is very low level manipulation. Groff d
> Von: "Ingo Schwarze"
>
> Hi Bernd,
>
> Bernd Warken wrote on Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:17:07PM +0100:
>
> > I will move all man-pages where I'm among the authors from FDL to GPL.
> >
> > Next I will transform all GPL man-pages into the following structure:
> [...]
> > Near the end of the man-pa
Bernd,
your macro looks nice, however, ...
> Maybe we could rename .FONT or .FT and add it to the man macros in
> an-old.tmac.
... Ingo has answered this, and I share his concerns. Unfortunately,
we have to stay conservative here, more or less. If at all, this
could be added to `an-ext.tmac'
> Von: "Ingo Schwarze"
>
> Bernd Warken wrote on Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:44:55PM +0100:
>
> [...]
> > Examples:
> > .FONT I text1 R text2 I text3 R text4
> > is equivalent to .IR text1 text2 text3 text4
>
> I don't particularly like the idea; changing the font for individual
> strings is very lo
> Von: "Werner LEMBERG"
>
> your macro looks nice, however, ...
>
> > Maybe we could rename .FONT or .FT and add it to the man macros in
> > an-old.tmac.
>
> ... Ingo has answered this, and I share his concerns. Unfortunately,
> we have to stay conservative here, more or less. If at all, this
> Groff does have established syntax for that, namely \fItext1
> \fRtext2 \fItext3 \fRtext4. [...] it is how roff syntax looks
> like: this century is not the right time to change basic roff
> syntax.
I disagree. While this is legal, it is not "established".
In fact, the recommended way to chan
On 01/26/2013 04:23 PM, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
Groff does have established syntax for that, namely \fItext1
\fRtext2 \fItext3 \fRtext4. [...] it is how roff syntax looks
like: this century is not the right time to change basic roff
syntax.
I disagree. While this is legal, it is not "establi
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013, Clarke Echols wrote:
> I was able to eliminate nearly all \f* in-line coding, and the
The \f* looks rather more like an "explitive deleted" than a font
request. Was that intentional? :)
--
Peter Schaffter
http://www.schaffter.ca
>> > .FONT I text1 R text2 I text3 R text4
>> > is equivalent to .IR text1 text2 text3 text4
>>
>> I don't particularly like the idea; changing the font for
>> individual strings is very low level manipulation. Groff does have
>> established syntax for that, namely \fItext1 \fRtext2 \fItext3
>> \
19 matches
Mail list logo
