Werner LEMBERG :
>
> > 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
> > .hy
Peter Schaffter wrote (Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:43:27
-0500):
>
> archaic, of limited use, poor typesetting compared to TeX,
> legendarily difficult to master. None of it is true--except, of
> course, the last bit.
>
> ...
>
> where are these front-ends to come from if we don't attract new
> users w
Other routes to hygien are exemplified by Lint and gcc -Wall.
e
Before jumping headfirst into .hygiene, it would be well to
consider independent style advisors along the lines of Lint or HTML
validators. These have the advantage of not complicating the basic
production software. By contrast, .hygiene is more like -W in
gcc--a thicket of options that can be used
Sorry, gang. I sent this to Eric instead of to the list.
- Forwarded message from Peter Schaffter -
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:29:25 -0500
To: "Eric S. Raymond"
From: Peter Schaffter
Subject: Re: [Groff] Back to the future
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Schaffter
Doug McIlroy :
> Before jumping headfirst into .hygiene, it would be well to
> consider independent style advisors along the lines of Lint or HTML
> validators.
I suspect this mail may have crossed a post of mine about defect patterns
in the real-world man-page corpus. I thought when I wrote it t
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG :
> >
> > > 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
Peter Schaffter :
> For the record, I feel that groff's evolution, if it is to happen,
> should be practically invisible in terms of user deployment.
> Whatever worked should continue to work, just better. I propose an
> improved groff, not a new one. It's why I'm increasingly dead-set
> against
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, hoh...@arcor.de wrote:
> You're kidding! Treating AT&T requests (or the extensions -- as
> said, I don't got it) as being contaminated sanitary facilities? Isn't
> it a rating to call something salubrious or not?
I dunno. LT wasn't averse to "porcelain" and "plumbing" for gi
Some months ago this list was quiet as usual. Suddenly Mr Eric
Raymond appeared kindly offering himself to migrate Groff to git. At
the same time two guys started to make strange proposals and Eric to
flatter one of them and calling him the new project leader. Now
surprise, surprise that strange
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Here are some facts about the defect patterns that I think are interesting:
>
> * There's a perceptible correlation between the origin date of a
> page and the (closely correlated) complexity and defect density of
> its markup. Older pages have m
Hi Ralph,
thank you for your help.
The file I sended was make with
groff -me -k -t foo > foo.pdf
but I got a very good solution with
ps2pdf foo.ps
Cheers
Grégoire
Le mardi 04 mars 2014 à 11:05 +, Ralph Corderoy a écrit :
> Hi Gregoire,
>
> > I found myself a way out:
> > with the conve
On 06/03/14 10:30:48, Walter Alejandro Iglesias wrote:
Some months ago this list was quiet as usual. Suddenly Mr Eric
Raymond appeared kindly offering himself to migrate Groff to git. At
the same time two guys started to make strange proposals and Eric to
flatter one of them and calling hi
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Peter Schaffter :
> I almost completely agree about the 100% backward compatibility, with
> one significant exception. I am now contemplating a future in which
> simplifying and regularizing man markup in the semanticized direction
> I think it needs
"Robert Thorsby" :
> I, for one, am very glad that someone of Peter's calibre is being
> slowly shoehorned into the [leadership] role. I suspect that most people
> have been silent for fear of spooking the prey (that's enough mixed
> metaphors for one paragraph).
And part of what I'm trying t
Peter Schaffter :
> As you point out in your DocLifter post, the actual number of groff
> requests needed for xml-friendly and presentationally-acceptable
> markup is very limited. I suspect list members who've spoken out
> against your proprosals are imagining some sort of mighty overhaul
> that
16 matches
Mail list logo
