Re: Thoughts on tbl(1)

[G. Branden Robinson]

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