Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015, 22:56:13 schrieb Deri James:
> Nowadays I use the dasher program for
> all writing, except coding.
I had a look at dasher. Interesting, but needs a lot of training.
Thanks for the hint.
Heinz
> Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>
> Heinz-Jürgen Oertel wrote:
> |Am Montag, 9. Februar 2015, 16:19:51 schrieb Peter Schaffter:
> |> Groffers --
> |>
> |> I don't see any mention of this in the list archives, and it's too
> |> wonderful to miss. If you want a glimpse of days gone by, have a
> |> lo
Heinz-Jürgen Oertel wrote:
|Am Dienstag, 10. Februar 2015, 22:56:13 schrieb Deri James:
|> Nowadays I use the dasher program for
|> all writing, except coding.
|
|I had a look at dasher. Interesting, but needs a lot of training.
|Thanks for the hint.
I did too and played a bit with the app
Clearly the miltary ROFF borrowed a name and many basic features
from roff on Multics. But EQROFF is an intereting innovation. Its
output style is still used by modern math systems like Maple. (I'm
glad, though, that Cherry and Kernighan hadn't seen it when they
set out to do eqn.) There was also
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015, Larry Kollar wrote:
> The spacing comment reminds me of when I was using nroff in 1983.
> We had a NEC daisy-wheel printer that could do arbitrary motions,
> at least horizontally. I cobbled an nroff “driver” (a compiled struct, IIRC)
> to even out the word spacing. Still Cour
Hi,
The "Using Symbols" section of the groff manual states:
Here the exact rules how `gtroff' searches a given symbol:
* If the symbol has been defined with the `char' request, use it.
This hides a symbol with the same name in the current font.
* Check the current font.
* If t
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:53:42 +, in message
f9035a933a372f4d85559b6b253dc408f86e8...@usslmmbx003.net.plm.eds.com,
Jones, Larry wrote:
> Dale Snell writes:
> >
> > Same here. Alas, "This report is itself an example of a ROFF
> > generated manuscript." Adding insult to injury, it appears to
>
> [...] Between checking .char definitions (which apply to all fonts)
> and checking the current font, there should be a check for a
> font-specific definition that overrides the symbol defined in that
> font.
>
> This omission makes it impossible to straightforwardly redefine
> select symbols in
