Re: [Groff] me docs

[Werner LEMBERG]

[about having .mso me.tmac in a document]

I've found a disadvantage: What if the user wants to use a different
implementation of the me macro package?  For example, I've heard that
the UNIX mm macros are still better than groff's version.  I can
imagine that people rename one of the packages to have both available.
This avoids fiddling with the -M option.

Hmm... Currently, I've used internal names to check whether to prevent
reloading.  It is probably better to check a macro of the official
interface instead so people can use the `-m' command line option to
force a different version.

I'll change that right now.

Again hmm...  Looking into s.tmac I see that it tests for the
existence of register GS, only defined in groff's version of -ms.  As
a consequence, I think that a document which loads the needed macro
package by itself has to test whether groff is available if it uses
some groff extensions.

Final hmm...  Using `.mso' in a document means that it will work with
groff only.

It seems that the following is necessary in a document to overcome all
these pitfalls:


  .if !\n(.g \
  .  ab This document can be formatted with GNU troff only!
  .
  .do mso xxx.tmac
  .
  .do if !r some-special-register-of-xxx \
  .  ab This document needs the groff version of the xxx macro package.



    Werner