[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Critique this bold-italic private macro for man pages

From: Carsten Kunze
Subject: Re: [Groff] Critique this bold-italic private macro for man pages
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 23:51:05 +0200 (CEST)

> "G. Branden Robinson" <address@hidden> hat am 3. Mai 2017 um 22:47 
> geschrieben:
> So ncurses should be gating on the definition of the glyph rather than
> on whether groff is the typesetter, right?
> .ie c \(lq .ds `` \(lq
> .el        .ds `` ``
> .ie c \(rq .ds '' \(rq
> .el        .ds '' ''
> What do you think?

Short answer:  We should differ manpages and other typesetting.  For general 
typesetting a document is created for one special tool.  If not, if it is e.g. 
a macro package like -mom, it need to detect the tool to make use of the tools 
special features.  There are severe differences (not in general but regarding 
special features) between groff, Heirloom and neatroff.  If you e.g. intent to 
write a book, it may be better to choose on of these tools and then write a 
document using all powerful features, which consequently is not portable--but 
this is ok.

Manpages should use the -man or -mdoc macros itself with as few as possible low 
level requests or escapes.  -mdoc should not need low level *roff elements at 
all.  As Ingo said, there are three major tools.  Most system IMHO use groff, 
more and more are using mandoc(1).  If there is an ancient system with an old 
*roff tool, this tool should be replaced.

To answer your question:  Simply use \(lq etc. (in manpages) and assume the 
tool supports it.


reply via email to

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