[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] nop request
From: |
Matthew Braun |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] nop request |
Date: |
Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:06:27 CDT |
"T. Kurt Bond" <address@hidden> comments:
>Would `.always' or `.text' be clearer?
Yes. Or ".pass", indicating that the text will be passed through
untouched. Like other folks, I assumed that "nop" does nothing, except
swallow its arguments, and produce no output. If it produces any
output, it's NOT doing "nothing", and "nop" is a misnomer.
>(Although I'm not really certain this needs to be in groff itself.)
I quite agree. If it's sole purpose is syntactic sugar, perhaps it
belongs in a private macro file which can be .so'ed in. IMHO, because
there's already a mechanism to perform this (.if 1), extending groff
itself with a 2nd method isn't necessary.
m@
- Re: [Groff] nop request, (continued)
RE: [Groff] nop request, Ted Harding, 2000/09/04
Re: [Groff] nop request, Steve Izma, 2000/09/05
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/09/09
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Ralph Corderoy, 2000/09/12
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/09/12
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Ralph Corderoy, 2000/09/15
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/09/18
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Ralph Corderoy, 2000/09/18
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/09/18
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Ralph Corderoy, 2000/09/20
- Re: [Groff] nop request, Werner LEMBERG, 2000/09/21