Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

Hi John, At 2024-08-09T16:41:11+1000, John Gardner wrote: > [I wrote:] > > All of the terminal output devices groff supports lack overstriking > > support. > > Whoops. I forgot that what I was seeing in less(1) was actually duped I don't think it was duped. It was being clever. There is lots o

Re: vim :hardcopy equivalent

Hi Marcus, At 2024-07-25T09:59:12+0200, me.gr...@mro.name wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 13:28:04 -0500 > "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > > The subsection/node "Page Location Traps" discusses how to do this > > and offers a simple example of the setup and use of header and > > footer traps. > > fra

Re: hyphenating non-english characters

Hi Gáspár, At 2024-08-01T10:23:31+0200, Gáspár Gergő wrote: > Thank you for your thorough answer! My pleasure! > > The good news is that if you convert the hyphenation pattern file to > > ISO Latin-2 (ISO 8859-2), you should be able to use it. > > Unfortunately, I got stuck at this point, as th

Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

On 2024-08-09 15:53:30 +1000, John Gardner wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > > So ideally, the fallback for "±0" should be "+0 or -0", which is > > much more readable and less ambiguous than "+-0" or "+/-0". > > For approximating ± in ASCII, is there some reason \z_+0 hasn't been > considered? I don't li

a bilingual English/French groff document (was: an observation and proposal about hyphenation codes)

Hi Sigfrid, At 2024-08-07T10:30:59+0200, Sigfrid Lundberg wrote: > I have strong feelings when it comes to multilinguality. A background: > I have a pre-retirement background in giving support to research in > arts and humanities. Occasionally I have had the opportunity to use > groff for that. T

Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

Hi Branden, Numeric expressions are already valid conditional expressions, so all we'd > need here is a syntax for interpolating an output device parameter. […] As > it happens, `\T` is *not* yet taken. True, but for fields that have lengthy values, it might help to have a syntax for testing the

Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

Hi Vincent, I really see a "+" underlined Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now out of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go. Concerning the original problem, I find myself in agreement with the general majority here: consistency with the ex

Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

Hi John, ...butting in on your dialogue with Vincent again... At 2024-08-09T19:38:48+1000, John Gardner wrote: >> I really see a "+" underlined > > Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now > out of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go. If the

Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

Hi John, At 2024-08-09T19:35:21+1000, John Gardner wrote: > > Numeric expressions are already valid conditional expressions, so > > all we'd need here is a syntax for interpolating an output device > > parameter. […] As it happens, `\T` is *not* yet taken. > > > True, but for fields that have le

Re: [PATCH] nextup.3: minor improvements

On 2024-08-09 19:38:48 +1000, John Gardner wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > > I really see a "+" underlined > > Is it visually distinct from an ordinary underscore? I merely ask now out > of curiosity, as Brandan explained why overstriking is a no-go. The underline bar is slightly different from an unde