Re: [groff] Macros in their own package ...

[John Gardner]

Apropos of compatibility outside `groff`...

Does anybody know of an exhaustive list of *roff implementations still in
common use? (Including legacy repositories of historical interest)

The current Roff interpreters I'm aware of are:

   1. *GNU Troff <https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/>* (~1989/1990 ‒
   present)
   2. mandoc <http://mandoc.bsd.lv> *[1]* (2008 ‒ present)
   3. *Heirloom Doctools <https://github.com/n-t-roff/heirloom-doctools>*
    (? ‒ present)
   4. *DWB 3.3 <https://github.com/n-t-roff/DWB3.3>* (???? ‒ 1993ish)
   5. *Solaris 10 ditroff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/Solaris10-ditroff>*
    (1980s ‒ ?)
   6. *Plan9 Troff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/Plan9_troff> *(???? ‒
   present)
   7. 9front Troff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/9front_troff> (???? ‒ ????)
   8. Utroff <http://utroff.org> (Which I know nothing about)

Closed source/proprietary implementations are only of interest if they can
be accessed via platform virtualisation... :-)

(I downloaded Solaris 10 for literally no reason other than adventurously
stress-testing the portability of my personal shell-scripts. For sick,
self-flagellating fun, of course)

On 22 February 2018 at 09:18, Mike Bianchi <address@hidden> wrote:

> I'll vote for having the macros in their own packages.
>
> The possibility of having macro packages which were compatible with more
> than
> one *roff is appealing.
>
> Having the Z macro set where the differences between the Aroff and Broff
> versions were clearly documented would be useful.
>
> To have a Z macro package containing both  Z_Aroff.tmac  and  Z_Broff.tmac
> is something to be hope for.
>
> --
>  Mike Bianchi
>  Foveal Systems
>
>  973 822-2085
>
>  address@hidden
>  http://www.AutoAuditorium.com
>  http://www.FovealMounts.com
>
>