> As per the Heirloom troff stuff - I tried porting
> Heirloom, but firstly, I like the ability to input
> UTF-8,
Heirloom troff reads UTF-8...
(at least that's what its user's manual says)
R
So it seems that the UnivMath* files are
just dummies here - there's no real font
coverage for that stuff? Does anyone
know if the actual PS fonts are available
somewhere? Or am I missing something?
As per the Heirloom troff stuff - I tried porting
Heirloom, but firstly, I like the ability to inpu
Hello,
What I know about the topic is basically here
http://9fans.net/archive/2010/09/182
However, I must repeat, the whole stuff is a mess.
What I think would be useful, would be to backport the abilities of
the Heirloom troff to work with T1, Truetype, OpenType fonts directly.
R
On 17 Februar
I'm trying to use the UnivMath6 fonts
in order to get a Blackboard bold D
in troff, so I issue:
.fp 6 M6 UnivMath6
but when it comes to postscript, it
complains:
converting from troff to postscript...
/386/bin/aux/tr2post: :76 :WARNING: cannot open file
/sys/lib/postscript/troff/UnivMath6
/386/b
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Jeff Sickel wrote:
> Has anyone experimented with using TeX to generate equations, store them as
> .eps, and then insert them into troff in some way that makes:
>
> .BP eqn1.eps
> .EP
>
> look like
>
> .EQ (1)
> sqrt{ {x sup 2 + x + 1} over {x - 1}}
> .EN
>
> Onl
> .EQ (1) sqrt{ {x sup 2 + x + 1} over {x - 1}} .EN
>
> Only without the broken font/line drawing when converted from
> postscript to pdf?
>
> Convoluted I know, but it sure would make $\sqrt{ {{x^2 + x + 1}\over
> {x-1}} }$ look more acceptable in a PDF generated on Plan 9 from troff
> source.
On Sep 11, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Russ Cox wrote:
> That sounds about right, unfortunately.
> You might be better off just using TeX.
> It's better at math, it runs on Plan 9,
> and your colleagues who don't use
> Plan 9 will still be able to collaborate
> on documents with you.
Has anyone experiment
You are right in that Lout cannot handle non-ASCII input, which is
something that kept me from using it much, as well. However, the
overall approach to the syntax and what not is much nicer than TeX.
Also, I would argue that Lout has much nicer output than both, troff
and TeX.
On Sep 12,
On 12 September 2010 20:25, Akshat wrote:
> If you like the cleanliness and simplicity of troff files for writing
> papers, and would like to avoid the hideousness of TeX, then you might want
> to try Lout. I ported it to Plan 9 earlier this year and just copied it to
> my contrib: contrib/akumar/
If you like the cleanliness and simplicity of troff files for writing
papers, and would like to avoid the hideousness of TeX, then you might
want to try Lout. I ported it to Plan 9 earlier this year and just
copied it to my contrib: contrib/akumar/lout.tgz
Best of luck,
ak
On Sep 12, 2010
On 12 September 2010 00:18, Russ Cox wrote:
> That sounds about right, unfortunately.
> You might be better off just using TeX.
> It's better at math, it runs on Plan 9,
> and your colleagues who don't use
> Plan 9 will still be able to collaborate
> on documents with you.
>
> Russ
Thanks for the
That sounds about right, unfortunately.
You might be better off just using TeX.
It's better at math, it runs on Plan 9,
and your colleagues who don't use
Plan 9 will still be able to collaborate
on documents with you.
Russ
Hello,
this starts to be daunting...
When I use troff with the R font, troff uses metrics from /sys/lib/troff/font/R.
Then something, when dpost -f is running, must take the real glyphs
and put them into the final ps.
I guess that something must read /sys/lib/postscript/troff/R to find
out that c
Hello,
I've been trying to regularly use troff for my writings. Being a
physicist I generally write a lot of math. What I miss quite often are
special math characters like Dirac brackets, in TeX \langle, \rangle
(so far I've replaced them just with < and >; but then I sometimes
need them bigger...
14 matches
Mail list logo
