[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo
From: |
Keith MARSHALL |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo |
Date: |
Mon, 8 May 2006 16:16:18 +0100 |
Joerg van den Hoff wrote:
> there is a typo (sort of) in the manpage. concerning the '-Z' option
> it reads:
>
> -Z Do not postprocess the output of troff that is normally called
> automatically by groff. This will print the intermediate output
> to standard output; see groff_out(5).
>
> the first sentence is broken AFAIKS.
Well, maybe `broken' is too strong; the meaning is fairly obvious,
but grammatically, I agree that it doesn't really make sense.
> maybe it could read, for instance:
>
> "Do not postprocess the output of troff (as is normally done
> automatically). This will print ..."
I favour this change of wording; it corrects the grammatical sense,
while preserving the originally intended meaning, whereas...
> or, alternatively:
>
> "Do not call any postprocessors (by default, grops(1) is otherwise
> called automatically) and print the intermediate output to stdout,
> see groff_out(5)."
This isn't strictly accurate, for the postprocessor invoked depends
on any `-T' option specified, and therefore may *not* be grops(1); to
suggest that grops(1) is the default, in the context of a description
of the `-Z' option could be misleading, for the `-T' and `-Z' options
are mutually independent.
Regards,
Keith.
- [Groff] groff manpage typo, Joerg van den Hoff, 2006/05/08
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo,
Keith MARSHALL <=
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo, Clarke Echols, 2006/05/08
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo, Keith MARSHALL, 2006/05/08
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo, Clarke Echols, 2006/05/08
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo, Werner LEMBERG, 2006/05/09
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo, Keith Marshall, 2006/05/10
- Re: [Groff] groff manpage typo, Keith MARSHALL, 2006/05/11