Re: [Groff] a .text macro

[Ted Harding]

On 10-Dec-01 Bernd Warken wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:30:29PM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> 
>> It's not clear to me what you want to do here.  Please give an
>> example why you need that.
>> 
> .\" start of example
> .eo
> .de text
> .  if 1 \{\}\$*
> ..
> .ec
> .text The .text macro prints an ellipsis
> .text ...
> .br
> .nop But .nop does not print the ellipsis.
> .nop ...
> .\" end of example
> 
> This produces
> 
> The .text macro prints an ellipsis ...
> But .nop does not print the ellipsis.

Sorry, I don't understand why either of these behaviours
is needed.

1. ".text The .text macro prints an ellipsis
    .text ..."

If you want to print something, why not just print it?
What's the point of prefacing it with ".text"?

2. ".nop But .nop does not print an ellipsis
    .nop ..."

Why is it needed that ".nop" should print anything?

I'm introducing personal preference and practice here,
but my view of ".nop" is that it should literally do
nothing (like the "nop" op-code for a CPU, for example).
There is an internal macro "@nop" in tmac.s, for example,
to which unimplemented macros are aliased when encountered.

In my case, I define

  .de nop
  ..

and, typically, use it as the blank line macro:

  .blm nop

since I often like to use blank lines for readable layout
in the input file, using explicit requests when I need the
effects that a blank line would produce by default.

I don't see the point of Bernd's suggested use of ".nop"
with arguments, nor therefore do I see why we need an
alternative ".text" to extend its capabilities!

Clarification would be welcome!

Best wishes,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 10-Dec-01                                       Time: 21:49:18
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------