[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Thoughts on tbl(1)
From: |
G. Branden Robinson |
Subject: |
Re: Thoughts on tbl(1) |
Date: |
Tue, 6 Sep 2022 07:49:58 -0500 |
Hi Alex,
At 2022-09-06T13:37:39+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> I was wondering if tbl(1) wouldn't be better split into tbl(1) and
> groff_tbl(7)
[...]
> I'd like to be able to refer to tbl(7) as a language when talking
> about it as a language.
That's a reasonable request. I think Ingo already does this in mandoc.
> (and maybe a link page tbl(7)).
Yes, if '@g@' is empty (see my previous mail about *.[157].man), that
makes sense.[1]
> And, I think it also makes sense to separate documentation about the
> command and its options from documentation about the language.
Yes, particularly if I realize my project of fleshing out the eqn and
pic man pages to become comprehensive references.
On the other hand, tbl is somewhat feeble as "little languages" in the
Kernighan/Bentley sense go. It doesn't even support macro expansion!
;-)
Regards,
Branden
[1] The make(1) variable 'g' might be empty but the expansion of '@g@'
will never be. I tripped myself with this recently.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=8aaabf5af1c0272a3f2b4d0927dcc8efd99161af
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Thoughts on tbl(1), Alejandro Colomar, 2022/09/06
- Re: Thoughts on tbl(1),
G. Branden Robinson <=