[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Groff] Re: \X and grohtml
From: |
Gaius Mulley |
Subject: |
[Groff] Re: \X and grohtml |
Date: |
25 Mar 2006 10:25:18 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 |
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
> Gaius,
>
>
> what's the reason to represent special characters of the form \[foo]
> as \(foo\) in the `x X' intermediate output command? Why not \[foo]
> also? If this is possible, can you change it, please?
Hi Werner,
[sorry I missed this email earlier]
Yes I see no reason why \[foo] cannot be used - it was originally
there to pass glyph names inside "specials" to post-grohtml to allow
for URLs to include glyphs rather than just single ascii characters.
I can implement this if you wish..
> Reason for the question is my efforts to implement a .device request
excellent..
> (almost) equal to \X. All requests which take an arbitrary string
> (.write, .ds, etc.) read this argument in `copy mode'. This means
> that \[foo] isn't interpreted specially but copied verbatim. I would
> like to avoid special code which makes the argument handling of
> .device different to similar requests, and having \[foo] in the
> intermediate output also makes this possible.
>
> At a first glance I couldn't find a particular reason for \(foo\)...
yes I think this is correct..
regards,
Gaius