Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

Hi Branden, G. Branden Robinson wrote on Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:35:52PM +1100: > Right. I've started to adopt the philosophy that _especially_ for > critical stuff, a senior engineer should not be writing an > implementation--he or se should be producing a spec, which junior > engineers then im

How to use refer macros-agnostic way?

Dear GROFF folks! Despite succesfully using GROFF for quite a while, I never happened to use the refer. My recent attempt to start using it revealed a strange groff/refer combination behaviour I really cannot put up with. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that groff cannot

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

Echoing these thoughts was this thread on the Ag Talk (agricultural focused set of forums) forum yesterday regarding an update to the Weather Underground app: https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=897280&mid=7946171#M7946171 Perhaps companies, or rather the management of companies

Re: How to use refer macros-agnostic way?

Hi Piotr, > my impression is that groff cannot print references or a bibliography > list, if not compiled together with some macro set: -ms, -mm, etc. refer(1) is a preprocessor that outputs assignments to registers and macro invocations. It is up to something downstream to provide macro definit

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

> C is one of the worst possible foundation languages conceivable for > automated formal verification Yet the Mars rovers run on a wholly checked code base written in C, subject to certain mechanically enforced restrictions on coding style. I'm not aware of comparably challenging systems having b

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:45:22PM -0500, Doug McIlroy wrote: > > C is one of the worst possible foundation languages conceivable for > > automated formal verification > > Yet the Mars rovers run on a wholly checked code base written > in C, ... I sometimes think that C would be greatly improved

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 01:21:47PM -0500, Mike Bianchi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:45:22PM -0500, Doug McIlroy wrote: > > > C is one of the worst possible foundation languages conceivable for > > > automated formal verification > > > > Yet the Mars rovers run on a wholly checked code base

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

At 2020-01-03T12:45:22-0500, Doug McIlroy wrote: > > C is one of the worst possible foundation languages conceivable for > > automated formal verification > > Yet the Mars rovers run on a wholly checked code base written > in C, subject to certain mechanically enforced restrictions on > coding st

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020, Larry McVoy wrote: yep, agreed. I'd throw in some stuff I did in http://little-lang.org which was really sort of a prototype for what I wanted C to evolve to. I was always sad that the development of C that became Alef never got off the ground. Regards - Damian Pacific

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

At 2020-01-03T13:21:47-0500, Mike Bianchi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 12:45:22PM -0500, Doug McIlroy wrote: > > > C is one of the worst possible foundation languages conceivable for > > > automated formal verification > > > > Yet the Mars rovers run on a wholly checked code base written > >

Re: GNUism in groff tests, was: pic anomalies

At 2019-12-31T08:37:00+, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Branden, > > > And who knows--maybe a gditroff page counting utility is something we > > should write and add to the distribution. > > $ printf '%s\n.bp\n' `seq 42` | groff -Z | grep -c ^p > 43 X-D Thanks! It's tempting to rewrite