groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Groff] Obsolete Df command?


From: Ted Harding
Subject: RE: [Groff] Obsolete Df command?
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:04:48 -0000 (GMT)

On 30-Oct-01 Bernd Warken wrote:
> The groff_out man page documents the command
> 
>       Df n\n Set the shade of gray to be used for filling  solid
>               objects  to  n;  n must be an integer between 0 and
>               1000, where 0 corresponds solid white and  1000  to
>               solid  black,  and  values in between correspond to
>               intermediate shades of gray.  This applies only  to
>               solid  circles,  solid ellipses and solid polygons.
>               By default, a level of 1000 will be used.  Whatever
>               color  a  solid  object  has,  it should completely
>               obscure everything beneath  it.   A  value  greater
>               than  1000  or  less  than 0 can also be used: this
>               means fill with the shade of gray that is currently
>               being  used for lines and text.  Normally this will
>               be black, but some drivers may  provide  a  way  of
>               changing this.
> 
> 
> This is now obsoleted by the command `DF g grey' command.
> So should the Df command be removed, or shall the existing 
> handling be kept, or should it be mapped to the DFg command? 

"\D'f n'" must be available: too much would need removing if
it were removed (and 'pic' would need revising). However, provided
mapping old troffout "Df n" to the new syntax is equivalent,
it may well be retained in that way.

By the way: Up to now, all the "\D" commands generate movement
according to their numerical parameters, even if the meaning
of the command does not imply movement (and "\D'f n'" is an example,
requiring an additional "\D'f n'\h'-nu'" to undo the motion;
likewise "\D't n'").

a) Is this "feature" retained for the new extensions?

b) I have always found this inconvenient except for those "\D"
   commands which really do draw, i.e. imply real "movement of
   the pen". Is this the moment to re-think the question?

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 30-Oct-01                                       Time: 20:04:48
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]