Re: [Groff] Query about .special

[Robert D. Goulding]

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> > What surprises me, though, is that it cannot find the glyph \[Fi]
> > when it is *specifically requested* using a \[] construct.  I.e.,
> > the special font has a glyph Fi defined, but \[Fi] uses the
> > fall-back instead of the proper, available glyph.  This strikes me
> > as a bug rather than a limitation.
>
> Using .schar instead of .fchar to define a fall-back \[Fi] is a
> possibility but perhaps not the right solution, given that `f' + `f' +
> `i' from the current font usually looks much better than a ligature
> glyph \[Fi] from a different font.
>
> Fall-back glyph definitions can be removed easily.  This should work,
> assuming that DAR has no \[Fi] and DAX has:
>
>   .fspecial DAR DAX
>   .rchar \[Fi]
>   \[Fi]
>

Yes, it does work; thanks very much.  Now, at least, I can
substitute by hand some of the ffi s.

RObert.