Hi Gregoire,
> I found myself a way out:
> with the convert command you can turn a .pdf to a .pdf
>
> convert foo.pdf foo1.pdf
>
> You can read foo1 with adobe reader. Well, the text ist not very
> sharp, an not very nice to read. But it's better than nothing.
Are you sure foo.pdf isn't a Po
Hi Clarke,
> I've been using groff to create a PostScript file, then I use the
> Linux convert command:
>
> convert file.ps file.pdf
That's ImageMagick, which I always find poorly documented. It uses
Ghostscript behind the scenes so Ghostscript's ps2pdf(1) would let you
tinker with the op
> I've been emailing PDF files to Windows and MAC types for years.
> [using]
ps2pdfwr -dEmbedAllFonts=true -dUseCIEColor=true -dPDFSETTINGS=/printer
For normal stuff, including plenty of eqn, pic and PSPIC, I get by with
a mere
ps2pdf file.ps
I'm glad to get the more elaborate recipe in
> > convert foo.pdf foo1.pdf
> convert file.ps file.pdf
>
> > Well, the text ist not very sharp, an not very nice to read.
> > But it's better than nothing.
>
> Did I miss something?
Yes. It's a terrible idea.
Convert is ImageMagick, a pixel-oriented set of tools.
It converts your PS or PDF
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 12:57:20AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Schaffter :
> :
> > Corollary to acknowledging that groff's primary role is as a
> > typesetting backend is keeping debates about manpages, semantically
> > useful macros, and well-formed input files distinct from discus
Mike Bianchi :
> I propose the hygienic feature as a first project after we agree on
> the mission statement.
>
> \# declare all groff macros hygienic, default
> .hygienic ON GROFFALL
>
> \# declare all groff macros not hygienic
> \# excludes .hyg
I've found that using ps2pdf14 will produce pdfs that everyone can open. I
create a postscript doc with groff then convert to pdf with ps2pdf14.
groff -ms -t -Tps myfile.roff >myfile.ps
ps2pdf14 myfile.ps
Chad
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM, GregExp wrote:
> I found myself a way out:
> with
Following on from Ted Harding's piece on Buffon's Needle, I offer a piece
(produced using groff) of my own which will be published in *The Palgrave
Encyclopædia of Strategic Management,* edited by David Teece and Mie
Augier, (London: Palgrave, 2014), at
http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/papers/MonteCarlo
Hi Eric,
> I had a simpler design in mind. My premise is that once hygienic mode
> has been set we in general don't want or need to unset it, and that's
> going to be the very last thing a macro package does.
What about the case of one main macro package and several helper ones
that do a small t
Ralph Corderoy :
> > I had a simpler design in mind. My premise is that once hygienic mode
> > has been set we in general don't want or need to unset it, and that's
> > going to be the very last thing a macro package does.
>
> What about the case of one main macro package and several helper ones
Hi Eric,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:12:45PM -0500:
> The semantics I had in mind allows unhygienic requests and macros
> to still be used inside macro definitions.
[...]
> That way you can define macros after a .hygiene call and they'll
> be visible unless you do another .hy
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:44:04AM +:
> esr wrote:
>> I had a simpler design in mind. My premise is that once hygienic mode
>> has been set we in general don't want or need to unset it, and that's
>> going to be the very last thing a macro package does.
> What
Ingo Schwarze :
> OK, so i'm using a macro set -mstrict that uses .hygiene
> and doesn't declare the roff .dirty request as hygienic.
>
> Now i make up my mind that using .dirty inside my document
> would really be convenient. Here is how i do it:
>
> .de clean
> .dirty
> ..
> .clean
Wh
Hi Eric,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:16:15PM -0500:
> Ingo Schwarze :
> > OK, so i'm using a macro set -mstrict that uses .hygiene
> > and doesn't declare the roff .dirty request as hygienic.
> >
> > Now i make up my mind that using .dirty inside my document
> > would really
Ingo Schwarze :
> I think i see your point why you want to press package maintainers
> a bit harder now, given what you already did so far. That's
> admittedly hard to do when expecting authors to add .hygiene
> to their documents, as i suggested in my other posting.
Yes. I think the point will
At semi-regular intervals through the last twelve years I have run
through the man directories of entire full-boat Linux distributions
running doclifter on every page and kicking fix patches upstream to
clean up markup that cannot be structurally lifted to DocBook.
Some individual portions of the
> Actually, now that I think about it, the right semantics for
> ".hygiene" is probably "hide everything *currently defined* that
> hasn't been declared visible". That way you can define macros after
> a .hygiene call and they'll be visible unless you do another
> .hygiene call.
What about doing
17 matches
Mail list logo
