Follow-up Comment #4, bug #64450 (group groff): At 2024-11-12T11:37:27-0500, Dave wrote: > Follow-up Comment #3, bug #64450 (group groff): > > [comment #2 comment #2:] >> I very recently decided against that. >> >> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=78394f9f5bbf22f7505c751c122f5b9c5f174073 > > That commit adds some flags to nroff, but is silent on why others were > decided against. > > It would add a bit of convenience for users to be able to use largely > the same command-line invocation, changing only the first letter of > the *roff command. The grn, grap, and chem preprocessors may not > render well in nroff (I've never used them), but surely subpar > rendering is preferable to skipping the preprocessing entirely. > > As comment #1 says, these flags are low priority, but what's the > rationale for rejecting them outright?
It's in the commit's diff.
+ # groff(1) options we don't support:
+ #
+ # -e
+ # -s because of historical clash in meaning.
+ # -f because terminal devices don't support font families.
+ # -g
+ # -G
+ # -j
+ # -p because terminals don't do graphics. (Some do, but grotty(1)
+ # does not produce ReGIS or Sixel output.)
+ # -l
+ # -L because terminal output is not suitable for a print spooler.
+ # -N because we don't support -e.
+ # -X because gxditview(1) doesn't support terminal documents (why?).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64450>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
