Re: [Groff] eqn's `...' operator

[Ted Harding]

On 05-Feb-07 Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> 
>> you've replaced `cdot' with \(md in eqn -- why not replacing
>> `...' with three \(md characters too?
> 
> Don't!  I want to have the "normal" ellipsis on the baseline.
> (Like in 1, 2, ...;  for special cases it's preferable to have
> a separate "cdots" operator with three \(md characters.)

I heartily agree with Tadziu! I'm not sure what's being done
to eqn at the moment (and today's earlier postings roused my
concern), but if it's going to screw up normal equation
formatting in (say) PostScript output for articles, reports,
and other documents which expect proper typesetting, then I'm
going to strongly oppose it!

I've been sitting as a passive spectator during all this exchange
about how to handle the man-page aspect of groff, and its
interface with doclifter and the like, since I don't have any
great concerns about the precise formatting of man-pages.
That's not my main interest where groff is concerned, and
so long as man-pages are readable and clear then all is fine
with me as far as thatis concerned.

But if the man-page tail starts to wag the groff dog, then
it's time to close the door on it.

How can we find out what precisely, and so far, has been done
to groff and its components (tbl, eqn, pic, .. ) in the name
of the man-page upgrade, and what the effects of this are likely
to be on non-man-page usage? And what is likely to be next in
the pipeline?

Best wishes to all,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 05-Feb-07                                       Time: 17:54:23
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------