[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed: change `pm` request argument semantics (was: process man(7
From: |
G. Branden Robinson |
Subject: |
Re: Proposed: change `pm` request argument semantics (was: process man(7) (or any other package of macros) without typesetting) |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:04:16 -0500 |
[self-follow-up]
Fixing a footnote oops. Numbers corrected in quoted material.
At 2023-08-17T18:44:14-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
> I think we can. I've been mulling this for months, and now that I'm
> on the threshold of implementing a `for` request as a string
> iterator,[2] I think I want something else first, largely to help me
> test it.
[..]
> But, then, that aspect of groff seems to have mystified many over the
> years.[3] I very much hope that being able to "debug print" them will
> start to clear away the smoke and confusion.
[...]
[2] https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?62264
> [3] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2020-10/msg00105.html
Regards,
Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature