Hi Ralph,
Or at best, gives it through some clunky ‘treat it as a string’ mechanism.
>
How is that clunky? Text is text. It's opaque, honest, and universal. The
foundation of the Unix Philosophy… you know this as well as I do. ;-)
One could look at shoehorning evermore complexity through to the
Hi John,
> > Support of modern font technologies and of course languages which
> > aren't left-to-right.
>
> Agreed. But for everything else you've mentioned: it's just a matter
> of writing another PDF postprocessor (or some other adapter for a
> particular format). Postprocessors are where
Hi Ralph,
> Support of modern font technologies and of course languages which aren't
left-to-right.
Agreed. But for everything else you've mentioned: it's just a matter of
writing another PDF postprocessor (or some other adapter for a particular
format). Postprocessors are where the real beauty
Hi Igno,
> We actually do have partial control over a significant portion of
> existing manual pages, by virtue of some relevant people participating
> in the list .
...
> Admittedly and for good reasons, huge numbers of individual, portable
> software packages also provide manual pages, and we
Quoth Ingo Schwarze:
Magnitudes and use cases are important. It would be nice to know, even
approximately, which systems _don't_ support `TQ` and other groff man(7)
extensions, and how prevalent those systems are.
Well, any Linux, BSD, and Illumos system is almost certainly fine
unless the
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Mon, May 23, 2022 at 10:22:58AM +0100:
> Doug wrote:
>> I fail to see any case for deprecating .PD.
> It seems pointless for GNU Groff to attempt to deprecate .PD when it is
> only one of the man-page formatters and has no control over the many
> existing man
Hi Branden,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Tue, May 24, 2022 at 12:57:08AM -0500:
> At 2022-05-24T04:44:21+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Your version (with .PD) has the clear advantage that it is more
>> portable: it is likely to work on any man(7) implementation,
>> whereas .TQ might fail on
Hi, Ingo!
At 2022-05-24T04:44:21+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Your version (with .PD) has the clear advantage that it is more
> portable: it is likely to work on any man(7) implementation,
> whereas .TQ might fail on implementations that are neither
> groff nor mandoc.
There's one wrinkle with
Hi Ralph, Branden, and Alejandro,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Mon, May 23, 2022 at 08:03:30AM -0500:
> At 2022-05-23T10:34:44+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>> Ingo wrote:
>>> The typical use case is in a tagged list that uses normal vertical
>>> spacing in general, but contains a few entries that
Hi again Branden,
> Ralph,
Sorry, didn't read it. You've had your quota of my time for a while.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
Hi Brendan,
> > > The typical use case is in a tagged list that uses normal vertical
> > > spacing in general, but contains a few entries that need two or
> > > more tags for a few of the list entries. For example, in a csh(1)
> > > manual page, you might say something like:
...
> > Wouldn't one
Ralph,
At 2022-05-23T10:22:58+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
I find your post to be fallacious.
> It seems pointless for GNU Groff to attempt to deprecate .PD when it
> is only one of the man-page formatters and has no control over the
> many existing man pages.
Let's plug different nouns from
Ralph,
At 2022-05-23T10:34:44+0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
[Ingo wrote:]
> > The typical use case is in a tagged list that uses normal vertical
> > spacing in general, but contains a few entries that need two or more
> > tags for a few of the list entries. For example, in a csh(1)
> > manual
Hi Ingo,
> The typical use case is in a tagged list that uses normal vertical
> spacing in general, but contains a few entries that need two or more
> tags for a few of the list entries. For example, in a csh(1)
> manual page, you might say something like:
>
> .TP
> \fBcd\fP [\fIname\fP]
>
Hi,
Doug wrote:
> I fail to see any case for deprecating .PD.
It seems pointless for GNU Groff to attempt to deprecate .PD when it is
only one of the man-page formatters and has no control over the many
existing man pages. Even if GNU adherents strike out its use within
their reach, it must
Hi Doug,
Douglas McIlroy wrote on Sun, May 22, 2022 at 09:21:19PM -0400:
> .TQ strikes me as awfully special pleading: a single-shot zero-spaced
> tagged list item.
The typical use case is in a tagged list that uses normal vertical
spacing in general, but contains a few entries that need two or
.TQ strikes me as awfully special pleading: a single-shot zero-spaced
tagged list item.
.PD is at least general-purpose. It sets paragraph spacing globally,
which I deem
much better than setting it separately (via .TQ) for every item in a list.
I fail to see any case for deprecating .PD.
Doug
Hi Alejandro,
> For the following existing usage of the deprecated .PD 0 I tried to
> use .TQ in a way that I'm not sure if it's correct by just reading
> groff_man(7):
>
> .PD 0
> .TP
> tag1
> Some text here.
> .TP
> tag2
> Some more text.
> .PD
Yes, if you
At 2022-05-21T22:41:58-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Yes, I think so. As I understand it, the HTML devices ("html" and
> "xhtml") _are_ the problem in this regard. Or they once were. A quick
> experiment reveals that `.PD 0` and `.PD` work fine at least for simple
> cases in HTML output.
Hi, Alex!
At 2022-05-21T23:58:57+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 5/21/22 17:21, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > In groff(7), I'm piloting "begin list" and "end list" macros to
> > provide a path out of the elaborate page-private macro system that
> > the page has used for many years. They are
Hi Branden,
On 5/21/22 17:21, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
In groff(7), I'm piloting "begin list" and "end list" macros to provide
a path out of the elaborate page-private macro system that the page has
used for many years. They are even simpler than TQ.
Hi Alex!
At 2022-05-21T16:46:51+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> For the following existing usage of the deprecated .PD 0 I tried to
> use .TQ in a way that I'm not sure if it's correct by just reading
> groff_man(7):
>
> [
> .PD 0
> .TP
> tag1
> Some text here.
> .TP
> tag2
> Some more text.
>
On 5/21/22 16:46, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
I (succesfully) tried the following:
[
.TP
tag1
Some text here.
.TQ
I missed here "tag2"
Some more text.
]
--
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
Hi, Branden!
For the following existing usage of the deprecated .PD 0
I tried to use .TQ in a way that I'm not sure if it's correct by just
reading groff_man(7):
[
.PD 0
.TP
tag1
Some text here.
.TP
tag2
Some more text.
.PD
]
The above produces:
[
tag1 Some text here.
tag2 Some more
24 matches
Mail list logo
