[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:25:36 +0200 (CEST) |
> > [...] the main reason is not groff but the function used to parse
> > the command line arguments: GNU's getopt. It sorts options and
> > non-options (the latter coming first). For the above command
> > line, groff sees this:
> >
> > groff -man -me -ms -Tlatin1 man/groff.man doc/meintro.me doc/pic.ms
> >
> If getopt() is replaced by a better option handler, would that be
> enough for groff to generate a suitable output for all such kinds of
> files with different macro packages?
No. All macro packages had to be rewritten to be cooperative.
In general, I don't see why we should do such a thing. Who needs that
feature (except man/mdoc)? What benefit do we have? I believe we
are discussing a theoretical question without a practical use.
Werner
- [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Bernd Warken, 2002/10/19
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Bernd Warken, 2002/10/21
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Bernd Warken, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Bernd Warken, 2002/10/22
- Message not available
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Bernd Warken, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, T. Kurt Bond, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Bernd Warken, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Werner LEMBERG, 2002/10/23
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, T. Kurt Bond, 2002/10/22
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Larry Kollar, 2002/10/22
Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff, Ralph Corderoy, 2002/10/29