[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] nop request and .tm
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] nop request and .tm |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Sep 2000 06:08:52 +0200 (CEST) |
> > It's part of groff already! For example, say
>
> > groff -mtrace -mm ...
>
> We're using groff 1.15 here, so I downloaded the 1.16 package and
> extracted tmac.trace. However, when I test it out, the "trace
> enter" message gets read as text input, whereas the "trace ext"
> message goes through to stderr. Am I missing something? Are there
> hooks in 1.16 that are needed to prevent this? I like the idea
> though.
Strange. It's just using `.tm'... Maybe you try 1.16.1? But this
shouldn't be the reason at all. If you still have problems, send an
example. I'm currently rewriting tmac.doc, and it works as expected.
> This explains for me the interoperability (I guess that's what it
> can be called) of the request and string syntax. But to be useable
> in this way (both inline and as a request on line by itself)
> everything contained in the definition must be inline code --
> strings or escape sequences. From my testing, I can't put
> conditional statements, for example, in the definition; they are
> sent to the output as strings of text.
I don't see a problem. For example, this works as expected:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.de xxx
\c
. ie t troff
. el nroff
..
We are using \*[xxx].
We are using
.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first line of the macro should be `\c', then it will behave
identically regardless of being called as `\*[xxx]' or `.xxx'.
Or do you mean something different?
> So I think another way of stating my question is: why does troff
> make a distinction between the excape syntax (e.g., "\*", or just
> plain "\") and the request syntax ("." or "'", i.e., the control
> character)?
Good question. I think this is just for historical reasons --- the
late Joe Osanna has developed roff in this way. TeX shows that a
single escape character is fully sufficient.
I believe that we should respect this, and I won't change groff's
paradigm. If you want to do that, just use TeX (and a good dvi2tty
conversion program :-)
Werner