Re: [Groff] extended font macro

[Bernd Warken]

> Von: "Ingo Schwarze" <address@hidden>
>
> Bernd Warken wrote on Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 03:44:55PM +0100:
> 
> [...]
> > Examples:
> > .FONT I text1 R text2 I text3 R text4
> > is equivalent to .IR text1 text2 text3 text4
> 
> I don't particularly like the idea; changing the font for individual
> strings is very low level manipulation.  Groff does have established
> syntax for that, namely \fItext1 \fRtext2 \fItext3 \fRtext4.
> Arguably, that's not particularly nice syntax, but it is how
> roff syntax looks like: this century is not the right time to
> change basic roff syntax.

Well, I do not change anything.  Everything can go its old/ancient way.
If you like the \f, use it.

I gave just an extension.  Maybe there are other people who want to be
more modern.  You can use the extension just by integrating the macro
definition.  So no one is hurt.

> Besides, i see no point in making low-level operations look nice
> syntactically.  Nice syntax is good for high-level macros, no doubt,
> but rather pointless for the gory low-level stuff.

That is no low level, it is quite high.  It makes .I, .B., .IR, .BR
as well as .ft unnecesary for those who like it that way.

> > Maybe we could rename .FONT or .FT and add it to the man macros
> > in an-old.tmac.
> 
> Above, i assume you want to do that for all of roff.
> If you just propose it for groff_man(7), i have an even
> stronger counter-argument.
> 
> The man(7) language is no longer useful for writing new
> documentation by hand.  Nowadays, people either generate man(7)
> code from preprocessors like pod2man(1) or DocBook or whatever
> or they use the more modern, more expressive mdoc(7) language.

I wrotye many man-pages and I am very glad to have a macro like
the new .FONT or .FT.  \f and .ft belong to the roff language,
they do not belong to man.  But due to the weakness of the man
language, it is necessary to use them in a man-page source.
.FONT makes man-pages more readable and has the flair of man,
not of roff.

> What man(7) still *is* useful for is backward-compatibility
> with archaic systems that still lack mdoc(7) - like Solaris.
> By extending man(7) functionality, you would destroy that
> last asset man(7) has.

The compatibility is not hurt, everything ancient is available.
You do not know about the extensionm.

> Or let me put it that way, it's called an-old.tmac for a reason.
> Do fix bugs there, but don't change the way it works.

I propose to change the tmac file, that's freedom.  No one is
hurt by that, but man-pages will become easier.

Bernd Warken