Re: [Groff] Re: Adding styles to DESC

[Peter Schaffter]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004, Steve Izma wrote:
> It seems to me that .fam should be in the same class of request
> as .fp, .fspecial, and .ftr, which describe how font changes will
> occur the next time a .ft is called.  Isn't this an easier paradigm
> to learn?

I'm inclined to agree with you, Steve, about it being an easier
paradigm to learn.  In fact, when I first began exploring groff, I
assumed it *was* the paradigm.  Curiously, it took about two years
before I discovered that it wasn't.

> So, is it worth the effort to change the current behaviour? At
> least, I think, it would make various fixes to various macro
> packages unnecessary.

If I can throw my two cents in here, I'm against changing the
current behaviour.  It seems to have worked adequately for a long
time now; the issue doesn't seem to have been of concern until
now.  Adding a couple of new registers which can be tested for, as
has been discussed in this thread, is what I favour.  IOW, no
significant change in groff's behaviour, just more flexibility for
macro writers to determine how to deal with what's already in
place.

-- 
Peter Schaffter

Author of _The Schumann Proof_, appearing fall, 2004
(pub. RendezVous Press, Canada)