[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff
From: |
Bernd Warken |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 10:22:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:25:36PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > >
> > 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.
>
Right, the feature is not absolutely necessary. But this should be
documented. I think about the groffer behavior for this.
BTW grog is not an awk script as I wrote in a former mail, but a shell
script. Maybe grog should be limited to one filename or standard input.
Bernd Warken
- [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, 2002/10/21
- Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff,
Bernd Warken <=
- 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