[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Experiences with Lout
From: |
Pierre |
Subject: |
Re: Experiences with Lout |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:22:12 -0400 |
>
> > - I personally think the Plain and PDF export is useless and can be
> > dropped. Both work only very limited and there are tools
> > available to convert from PS to PDF to TXT and back.
>
> Isn't it a bit rash to dismiss a feature that you don't use as
> universally useless?
>
> I personally find plain text extremely useful for debugging
> definitions or doing a quick test (lout -p -s | cat -s).
>
> Other people find PDF useful because when you need to generate simple
> PDFs well within limitations of the pdf backend, you save time/space
> on not having ghostscript around.
I for one mostly use the ps output, but I think the -p output is just
plain necessary (for generating, well, text output. Text is neat. Text
is universal. Text is needed).
I also think that the -Z option should be kept, pretty much as is. It
doesn't make Lout much heavier, and it is useful for basic doc
generation.
I do like lout's most advanced features, but I also used to use Todd
Coram's AFT quite extensively, and the -p and -Z options are needed
AFAIC. Or I could just keep using AFT for "simple" output, but that
means re-writing stuff. Re-writing is bad, m'kay*?
Cheers
--
P
* I still like Todd's AFT, as a VERY lightweight solution for simple
stuff. Try it, you'll love it.