Bug#498082: GNU mdoc vs UCB mdoc (was Re: Bug#498082: lintian: false positive in manpages)
Colin Watson dixit:
would mean that line/byte numbers would be wrong, which could be
confusing.
They are wrong anyway, as the macro packages count for byte numbers
too, at least in the iconv example. But still a point: we could just
wc the macro package first.
mdoc; docj.tmac still has it, commented as parse argument vector
(recursive). As far as I can tell this was replaced by the
doc-parse-args macro, probably in Werner Lemberg's complete rewrite of
mdoc in March 2001. However, it wasn't obvious to me how to upgrade your
macro.
Interesting… why a rewrite, I wonder. But yes, parse argument vector
recursively sounds about right. Maybe I can use something like this:
│.if \n(.g \{\
│.de aV
│.doc-parse-args \\$1 \\$2 \\$3 \\$4 \\$5 \\$6 \\$7 \\$8 \\$9
│..
│.\}
I think this use of a more than two character macro will be tolerated
by ATT nroff since it’s if’d out anyway.
The other option would be GNU groff mdoc tmac file upstream considering
to add back support for the aV macro…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in Notes on Programming in C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#498082: GNU mdoc vs UCB mdoc (was Re: Bug#498082: lintian: false positive in manpages)
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 07:57:44PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Colin Watson dixit:
would mean that line/byte numbers would be wrong, which could be
confusing.
They are wrong anyway, as the macro packages count for byte numbers
too, at least in the iconv example. But still a point: we could just
wc the macro package first.
Right now they're close enough to be useful, at least for me.
mdoc; docj.tmac still has it, commented as parse argument vector
(recursive). As far as I can tell this was replaced by the
doc-parse-args macro, probably in Werner Lemberg's complete rewrite of
mdoc in March 2001. However, it wasn't obvious to me how to upgrade your
macro.
Interesting… why a rewrite, I wonder.
You'd have to ask Werner. I assume he had a good reason; he doesn't
normally go in for rewrites for the sake of it, as far as I can see.
But yes, parse argument vector recursively sounds about right. Maybe I
can use something like this:
│.if \n(.g \{\
│.de aV
│.doc-parse-args \\$1 \\$2 \\$3 \\$4 \\$5 \\$6 \\$7 \\$8 \\$9
│..
│.\}
I think this use of a more than two character macro will be tolerated
by ATT nroff since it’s if’d out anyway.
The other option would be GNU groff mdoc tmac file upstream considering
to add back support for the aV macro…
This is beyond me; I recommend asking [EMAIL PROTECTED] for help here. I
don't know whether defining aV to doc-parse-args would be sensible or
not.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
