groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Groff] \*SN] question


From: Ted Harding
Subject: RE: [Groff] \*SN] question
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:41:09 -0000 (GMT)

On 12-Feb-07 Joerg van den Hoff wrote:
> hi, second try (something went wrong the first time...):
> 
> I stumbled over the following:
> 
> I have some ms-macros to collect .NH section headings automatically in
> a table of content
> (TOC) with the correct section number. a stripped down variant is
> attached. in order to
> account for .SH sections as well I modifed this recently. the calling
> syntax is
> 
> .NHH n heading
> 
> 
> where `n' is the level and `heading' the section header. if `n' is set
> to  0 a `.SH'
> section should be inserted, otherwise a level-n `.NH' section. I now
> noted that inserting
> 
> .NHH 0 heading
> 
> calls in the document leads to omission of the \*[SN] information from
> the TOC despite
> correct numbering in the  document. only if one uncomments the third
> line in the attached
> example (i.e. `.rm SN') everything is ok.
> 
> 
> question: can someone explain to me what actually is going on? somehow
> something seems to
> go wrong with the `.als SN SN-DOT' or I unintentionally mask the
> correct definition of
> \*[SN] or whatever. I don't get it why the `.NH' calls work, but \*[SN]
> no longer contains
> the correct information if I insert the `.SH' option in the macro
> definition. why have I
> explicitely `.rm SN' first??
> 
> any ideas would be appreciated :-)
> 
> joerg

I tried your example (your code not reproduced here) with
groff-1.18.1, without making any changes to it,  and got
no earnings, and the following output:


heading1
SN register content: >>><<<
1. heading2
SN register content: >>>1.<<<
1.1. heading3
SN register content: >>>1.1.<<<
           Table of Contents

heading1 ................................1
1. heading2 .............................1
1.1. heading3............................1

[spaces in the tab leader removed in the above]


That looks to me like what should have been produced.

Was your result different, and, if so, what is supposed to
be wrong with it?

Bestwishes,
Ted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 12-Feb-07                                       Time: 20:41:06
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]