Re: [Groff] grog Using groff.

[Werner LEMBERG]

> grog, old and new, produces a groff command making use of its -p, -t,
> etc., options to pull in all the pre-processors.  The doctype script
> from Kernighan and Pike's _The Unix Programming Environment_ which
> influences it produces
> 
>     cat "$@" | refer | pic | ideal | tbl | eqn | troff -ms
> 
> What advantages does grog have of using groff?

It's easier to read for humans, and it handles the output device.
Think of the complicated command line for `groff -Thtml'.

> Alternatively, groff could have another option that speficies a
> pre-processor to add to the pipeline.  Then grog could produce
> 
>     groff -? ideal -pt -ms

This sounds like a nice idea.  Perhaps two switches: one to put a
preprocessor as the first into the queue, and another to make it the
last. Using the switches more than once should be possible, retaining
the order given on the command line.

> but how would groff know the best order to put the pre-processors in,
> i.e. where to place ideal in the pipeline it would otherwise build?

But grog has exactly the same problem, hasn't it?  How does grog know
the right order?  Perhaps I should add three more switches for
`ideal', `chem', and `dformat' to assure the right position.  Are
there still other preprocessors out there?

> BTW, can there be any problems caused by running soelim
> unconditionally?

AFAIK, no.  There are sometimes situations where .so should be
recognized by groff but not by soelim; the solution is to write `. so'
which isn't recognized by soelim.


    Werner