Apropos of compatibility outside `groff`... Does anybody know of an exhaustive list of *roff implementations still in common use? (Including legacy repositories of historical interest)
The current Roff interpreters I'm aware of are: 1. *GNU Troff <https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/>* (~1989/1990 ‒ present) 2. mandoc <http://mandoc.bsd.lv> *[1]* (2008 ‒ present) 3. *Heirloom Doctools <https://github.com/n-t-roff/heirloom-doctools>* (? ‒ present) 4. *DWB 3.3 <https://github.com/n-t-roff/DWB3.3>* (???? ‒ 1993ish) 5. *Solaris 10 ditroff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/Solaris10-ditroff>* (1980s ‒ ?) 6. *Plan9 Troff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/Plan9_troff> *(???? ‒ present) 7. 9front Troff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/9front_troff> (???? ‒ ????) 8. Utroff <http://utroff.org> (Which I know nothing about) Closed source/proprietary implementations are only of interest if they can be accessed via platform virtualisation... :-) (I downloaded Solaris 10 for literally no reason other than adventurously stress-testing the portability of my personal shell-scripts. For sick, self-flagellating fun, of course) On 22 February 2018 at 09:18, Mike Bianchi <mbian...@foveal.com> wrote: > I'll vote for having the macros in their own packages. > > The possibility of having macro packages which were compatible with more > than > one *roff is appealing. > > Having the Z macro set where the differences between the Aroff and Broff > versions were clearly documented would be useful. > > To have a Z macro package containing both Z_Aroff.tmac and Z_Broff.tmac > is something to be hope for. > > -- > Mike Bianchi > Foveal Systems > > 973 822-2085 > > mbian...@foveal.com > http://www.AutoAuditorium.com > http://www.FovealMounts.com > >