[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [groff] [Groff] Unintended impact of strip.sed on om.tmac-u?

From: Steve Izma
Subject: Re: [groff] [Groff] Unintended impact of strip.sed on om.tmac-u?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:32:29 -0500
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:10:04AM -0500, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Subject: Re: [groff] [Groff] Unintended impact of strip.sed on om.tmac-u?
> I have, admittedly, never processed a document larger than a 600
> page novel.

I have typeset many books of sizes close to 1000 pages (and often
more) that include tables and pic-style graphics, and I find
groff to be remarkably fast.

When adjusting and correcting the output for books this size, I
would normally work on individual chapters (which groff always
handles quickly enough to almost immediately update a pdf-viewer
window). But I also frequently need to run a complete version of
such large books and I doubt that WYSIWYG programs would be
noticeably faster.

My experience leads me to believe that groff with either stripped
or non-stripped macro packages is no impediment to typographical

        -- Steve

Steve Izma
Home: 35 Locust St., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada  N2H 1W6
E-mail: address@hidden  phone: 519-745-1313  cell: 519-998-2684

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

reply via email to

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