[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [groff] Macros in their own package ...
From: |
John Gardner |
Subject: |
Re: [groff] Macros in their own package ... |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:48:31 +1100 |
Apropos of compatibility outside `groff`...
Does anybody know of an exhaustive list of *roff implementations still in
common use? (Including legacy repositories of historical interest)
The current Roff interpreters I'm aware of are:
1. *GNU Troff <https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/>* (~1989/1990 ‒
present)
2. mandoc <http://mandoc.bsd.lv> *[1]* (2008 ‒ present)
3. *Heirloom Doctools <https://github.com/n-t-roff/heirloom-doctools>*
(? ‒ present)
4. *DWB 3.3 <https://github.com/n-t-roff/DWB3.3>* (???? ‒ 1993ish)
5. *Solaris 10 ditroff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/Solaris10-ditroff>*
(1980s ‒ ?)
6. *Plan9 Troff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/Plan9_troff> *(???? ‒
present)
7. 9front Troff <https://github.com/n-t-roff/9front_troff> (???? ‒ ????)
8. Utroff <http://utroff.org> (Which I know nothing about)
Closed source/proprietary implementations are only of interest if they can
be accessed via platform virtualisation... :-)
(I downloaded Solaris 10 for literally no reason other than adventurously
stress-testing the portability of my personal shell-scripts. For sick,
self-flagellating fun, of course)
On 22 February 2018 at 09:18, Mike Bianchi <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'll vote for having the macros in their own packages.
>
> The possibility of having macro packages which were compatible with more
> than
> one *roff is appealing.
>
> Having the Z macro set where the differences between the Aroff and Broff
> versions were clearly documented would be useful.
>
> To have a Z macro package containing both Z_Aroff.tmac and Z_Broff.tmac
> is something to be hope for.
>
> --
> Mike Bianchi
> Foveal Systems
>
> 973 822-2085
>
> address@hidden
> http://www.AutoAuditorium.com
> http://www.FovealMounts.com
>
>