On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 10:39:08 +0100, Anders Magnusson wrote: > Den 2021-03-13 kl. 10:03, skrev Valery Ushakov: > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:54:46 +0100, Reinoud Zandijk wrote: > > > > > Well, there is lout to consider. > > [...] > > > I've never used it for manpage rendering though! A simple `awk' > > > script could indeed do it as its format is quite easy. Uwe has > > > experience with it :) > > Right, and in my experience it would be completely unsuitable. :) > > > > Now, don't get me wrong, I love Lout and and when I need a batch > > formatter it's what I use unless there are strong overriding reasons. > > But it's *way* slower than roff or tex (remember, that troff and tex > > are macro processors, while lout uses a functional language). > > Hm, I have a vague memory of that this discussion a very long time > ago started with the problem that manpages that contained raw troff > code couldn't be formatted correctly with mandoc(1)? > > In case anyone cares; some time ago I fixed the original nroff in > 2.11BSD so that it could handle the mandoc macros. With todays > standard this code is very small and might solve the original > problem directly.
heirloom doctools (the original ditroff as reached us by the way of solaris) is reasonably fast (not as fast as mandoc, but non-trivially faster than groff) and is quite feature rich, so if we want to 1) have some troff in base 2) that is not groff, then I think it's the only reasonable choice. -uwe
