[bug #64484] [troff] .device and \X don't behave the same

[Deri James]

Update of bug #64484 (project groff):

                Severity:              3 - Normal => 2 - Minor              
             Assigned to:                    deri => gbranden               

    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comment #2:

There are 4 separate ways to send text to a postprocessor.

.ds a deri
\X'X \(ti \*a'
.device device \(ti \*a
.fl
\! ! \(ti \*a
.output output \(ti \*a
.tm tm \(ti \*a    \" output to STDERR

Which produces:-

x T ps
x res 72000 1 1
x init
p1
V12000
H72000
x font 5 TR
f5
s10000
V12000
H72000
md
DFd
x X X ~ deri
wh2500
V12000
H74500
x X device \(ti deri
n12000 0
 ! \(ti deri
output \(ti deri
tm \(ti deri
x trailer
V792000
x stop

\X is the only one which attempts to "asciify" the parameters. There is a
difference between the two pairs of commands, if you remove the .fl and
rerun:-

x T ps
x res 72000 1 1
x init
p1
 ! \(ti deri
output \(ti deri
tm \(ti deri
V12000
H72000
x font 5 TR
f5
s10000
V12000
H72000
md
DFd
x X X ~ deri
wh2500
V12000
H74500
x X device \(ti deri
n12000 0
x trailer
V792000
x stop

.output and \! are now out of cnronological order.

In gropdf I used to rely on manual "asciifying" of parameters, the new gropdf
does not, in order to support unicode (passed as \[uXXXX]) I need it to be
passed untouched.so it can be converted to UTF-16 by gropdf itself (also
applies to any special chars - \(xx \[xxx] \C'xxx' \N'nnn'). It also needs to
maintain chronological order.

I don't know whether the pdfmark macros rely on the asciifying behaviour of \X
or not. 



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64484>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/