> A. MM has no clear way to set ll
You can use ll in MM, but the effect will remain local.
It is common practice among macro packages to reset the line length
to some "master value" on every paragraph / section header / etc.
In MM that master value is taken from register W while defining
the ma
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:02:16AM -0500, Blake McBride wrote:
> I have been using troff on and off since 1983. I know all that.
>
> The macro packages act as a higher level API but almost never completely
> duplicates all of the lower level commands. Surely you don't want to
> conflict with a m
I have been using troff on and off since 1983. I know all that.
The macro packages act as a higher level API but almost never completely
duplicates all of the lower level commands. Surely you don't want to
conflict with a macro package that assumes it has control over a certain
parameter, but li
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 08:35:34PM -0500, Blake McBride wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 3:52 PM, wrote:
> > The interface to .ll is \nW or .PGFORM. At first my plan was to implement
> > .PGFORM. But *maybe* using W like MS's LL could also make sense. But for
> > compatibility with groff .PGFOR
> .ll works with MM in Heirloom and groff. Tbl should too.
> It doesn't make sense to require all kinds of hoops just to
> get something as basic as .ll to work.
> Also, why would the problem be in MM? MM is working. I think
> the problem is in tbl.
I think you misunderstood me. Tbl *is* usi
> Adding .PGFORM is fine, but I would prefer just having .ll work like it
> does on groff. This way the original docs work and produce as expected.
.PGFORM is already implemented but not committed yet.
Do you know how .ll works in groff's MM? It is not documented. You know how
it works for y
