Re: [Groff] Back to the future

[hohe72]

Peter Schaffter <address@hidden> wrote (Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:43:27
-0500):
>
> archaic, of limited use, poor typesetting compared to TeX,
> legendarily difficult to master.  None of it is true--except, of
> course, the last bit.
>
> ...
>
> where are these front-ends to come from if we don't attract new
> users who have the knowledge, drive, and skill to write them?
>
> ...
> 
> .. or create new requests in a vein similar to de1, am1, etc.

So you said, but:

.hygienic
.hygiene

>         \#      declare all groff macros hygienic, default
>         .hygienic ON   GROFFALL
> 
>         \#      declare all groff macros not hygienic
>         \#      excludes  .hygienic
>         .hygienic OFF  GROFFALL
> 
>         \#      change given macros hygienic modes
>         .hygienic { OFF | ON }  macroname ...
> 
>         .macroset macrosetname  macroname ...          ?
>         .hygienic { OFF | ON }  macrosetname ...       ?
> 
>         \#      set hygienic mode
>         .hygienic { DISABLE | ENABLE } 

Don't get it. Explained with itself. Cannot imagine a more nontechnical
term. Guys, your requests are:

.de1
.am1

not:

.soap
.wash

You're kidding! Treating AT&T requests (or the extensions -- as
said, I don't got it) as being contaminated sanitary facilities? Isn't
it a rating to call something salubrious or not? Some of you are
writers. Will I mind it unintentional? How does it go together with
compatibility mode. What is the next term: "bloom"?

Further .de1 or .am1 is no good choice, believe me. You are better with
terminologies that group requests by concepts.

I think you are defining requests, and have done so in the past, for the
only purpose to deal with your macro programming. (At least I found
\O[n] escapes at man groff_diff.) Then -- call it appropriately.

You know:
> .. if we don't attract new users ..

Just do it,  Holger