Re: pdfroff in groff 1.23.0.rc3 changes compared to 1.22.4

[John Gardner]

>
>  Yes.  Though it contains device-dependent troff output.  :-)
>

Aye, but most folks would find that less confusing than a format named
after a fish <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout>… ;-)


>  The ‘dit’ suffix is probably what I've seen the most.
>

Same, although I personally prefer to use .ditroff for long-term storage of
ditroff source (say, a fixture tracked by version control).


> Also, the ‘out’ seems wrong. So many files are the output of something yet
> don't have that in their suffix.  a.out seems to have that honour as it
> nabbed it first.


Agreed. I also see *.out and *.err files generated by unit-tests that dump
their stdout and stderr streams (respectively). On a related note, I used
to use .out as the file-extension of Roff.js's test-fixtures. I later
regretted that when I added fixtures for Osanna troff's output (raw binary
containing C/A/T driver instructions). Though in hindsight, *.cat was
probably a better choice of extension…

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 02:48, Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> > I've always just called it "ditroff" (*"device-independent troff
> > [output]"*), with *.dit and *.ditroff being my typical choice of file
> > extensions.
>
> The ‘dit’ suffix is probably what I've seen the most.
>
> > I'm aware that it's a reappropriation of an obsolete name for all
> > post-Osanna troff(1) implementations, but its meaning is clearer to
> > readers familiar with the term *"device-independent [gt]roff output"*.
>
> Yes.  Though it contains device-dependent troff output.  :-)
>
> > The names "grout" and "trout", OTOH, are a lot less obvious.
>
> Also, the ‘out’ seems wrong.  So many files are the output of something
> yet don't have that in their suffix.  a.out seems to have that honour as
> it nabbed it first.
>
> The file contains a rendering of the troff for a device.
> In case that helps trigger better suggestions.
>
> --
> Cheers, Ralph.
>
>