Re: [Groff] Several file arguments to groff

[T. Kurt Bond]

Bernd Warken writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:50:53AM -0400, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
> > Bernd Warken writes:
> > > +.P
> > > +The reason for this is that
> > > +.B groff
> > > +only uses one argument of the option type
> > > +.ShortOpt m
> > > +to load external macro packages for all specified file arguments.
> > 
> > Strictly speaking, this isn't true.  It's not unknown for there to be
> > multiple -m options: some macro packages are designed to work
> > together.  (Isn't -mpic there just for macro packages that don't
> > implement their own .PS and .PE?)
> > 
> groff(1) describes -p for preprocessing with pic; -mpic is not
> mentioned in section "Macro Packages".

Yes, but this isn't about what programs groff uses to preprocesses the
input, it's about what macro packages get loaded.

pic.tmac is installed in the .../tmac directory along with all the
other groff .tmac files.  All it contains are the definitions of .PS
and .PE.  No other file in .../tmac references it, as far as I can
tell.  What can it be there for other than use as a helper for macro
packages that don't do their own definitions of .PS and .PE?  In such
cases it's reasonable to expect users to invoke it as -mpic.

In any case, I have seen other useful cases of multiple uses of -m,
and the original troff manual says nothing about limiting -m to one
use only.

I do not think it is useful to imply that multiple uses of -m are
illegal.  

I *do* think it is useful to document that some macro packages do not
work with other macro packages.  It might even be useful to warn the
users that use of multiple -m options may only work if the two macro
packages are designed to work together.

-- 
T. Kurt Bond, address@hidden