[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Groff vs Heirloom troff (was Re: Quick question: how to do .index in
Re: Groff vs Heirloom troff (was Re: Quick question: how to do .index in groff?)
Wed, 5 Aug 2020 16:05:35 +0200
Dave Kemper wrote on Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:17:25PM -0500:
> On 7/31/20, Peter Schaffter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Several years ago, I fielded the idea that, instead of chasing after
>> the Grail of paragraph-at-once, groff's line-formatting algorithm be
>> improved instead. I worked on systems that used the formatting
>> strategy I proposed
>> and can confirm that it significantly reduced the amount of
>> intervention required to achieve good grey on a line-by-line basis.
>> There wasn't much interest in the proposal back then--I felt a bit
>> like a voice crying in the wilderness--but maybe it's time to try
>> crying again?
> I wonder if it's less a lack of interest and more a recognition that
> we have a shortage of people with the willingness and expertise to
> make any substantive changes to the groff code. I, and I'm sure
> others, welcome any improvements to typographic output, but it's hard
> to get excited over ideas -- even good ideas -- if no one plans to
> turn them into working code. That situation hasn't changed much since
Exactly. When you post an idea and five people reply with ten
arguments why it is unlikely to work, it was often a bad idea.
But if you get no reply, it may still be an excellent idea.
For example, i often drop out of discussions, even interesting
discussions, when i don't plan to do the work, or even don't join
them in the first place in that case.