For example, TeX's hyphenation works on glyphs instead of
characters.
Seems to me like a good idea: two different glyphs for the
same character might have widely differing metrics.
For example, TeX's hyphenation works on glyphs instead of
characters.
Seems to me like a good idea: two different glyphs for the
same character might have widely differing metrics.
It's a very bad idea since hyphenation is completely independent from
the used glyphs and fonts!
Perhaps
Recently, TeX has been extended with a lua interpreter: luaTeX;
this seems to be the future, since complete support for OpenType
has been already implemented.
Interesting. But I wonder: apart from backwards compatibility,
wouldn't it make more sense to reimplement the basic routines of the
Mhmm, in TeX you have basically the same limitations.
Both groff and TeX languages are not well suited to such
operations. Recently, TeX has been extended with a lua
interpreter: luaTeX; this seems to be the future, since
complete support for OpenType has been already implemented.
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
I got a reply from Tadziu Hoffman who gave me an idea of making a
real stack,
As I mentioned in a previous mail, this works fine for arguments
without spaces only.
Well, my requirements actually allow me to fit inside that limitation.
OK, off to your 2nd email,
On December 30, 2009 01:09:07 pm Chuck Robey wrote:
In a language like groff, anything that works is beautiful.
ROTFL
Elegantly said, Chuck, and true. It ought to be the official motto
of the list.
--
Peter Schaffter
I want to reply to both of your mails here in one mail. First,
constructing the variable names piece by piece and maintaining
multiple variables to simulate arrays does seem to me to be kludgy.
Mhmm, in TeX you have basically the same limitations. Both groff and
TeX languages are not well
