[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument"
From: |
Bernd Warken |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument" |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Jun 2002 09:16:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 11:23:28PM -0400, Larry Kollar wrote:
>
> Bernd Warken <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > The greatest difficulty is the conservatism of the groff elders.
> > Security in driving cars is a bit more complicated than with bicycles
> > from the stone age.
>
> I was following you until that last paragraph, then I got lost.
> The "conservatism" part I partially understand (I think): there
> are a lot of old documents out there that occasionally get brought
> back into the light & reprinted (and possibly revised along the
> way). That's a good thing; it sets text-based formatters apart
> from commercial Word processors that won't read their own documents
> from 2 or 3 revisions previous. I've not heard anyone advocate
> limiting groff to an exact replica of ditroff -- long names, the
> while construct, and numerous other extensions made that a lost
> cause long ago anyway.
My changes won't touch any features of groff. I'm talking about coding
errors. A user will not notice any difference apart from bugs being
fixed and a better defense against buffer overflow attacks.
>
> I'm also confused about the "stone age bicycle" comment. You said
> (in essence) that security issues are less complicated for stone
> age bicycles, but groff needs a lot of non-trivial work in this
> department.
groff is a modern system, but many parts of the code come from the
computing stone age - just like some decisions on code improvements.
Maybe we should not extend this discussion here.
> I fully agree that groff isn't the bicycle -- indeed,
> a couple of issues came up on the FrameMaker users' list this week
> (automatic "continued" insertions and chapter-level table of
> contents) that *roff has always been able to handle with the usual
> tools. A Frame solution (at least for the "continued" insertions)
> probably involves an external script -- not a bad thing in itself,
> but it's a break in the workflow.
I did not mean this, but it is a good idea. Such additions are always
wanted.
Bernd Warken
- [Groff] PSPIC error - "missing argument", Larry Kollar, 2002/06/12
- [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Larry Kollar, 2002/06/12
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Werner LEMBERG, 2002/06/13
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Larry Kollar, 2002/06/13
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Bernd Warken, 2002/06/14
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Werner LEMBERG, 2002/06/14
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Bernd Warken, 2002/06/14
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Ralph Corderoy, 2002/06/14
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Bernd Warken, 2002/06/15
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Larry Kollar, 2002/06/15
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument",
Bernd Warken <=
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Ralph Corderoy, 2002/06/16
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Bernd Warken, 2002/06/16
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Ralph Corderoy, 2002/06/16
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Colin Watson, 2002/06/16
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Bernd Warken, 2002/06/16
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Colin Watson, 2002/06/16
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Werner LEMBERG, 2002/06/14
- Re: [Groff] Re: PSPIC error - "missing argument", Larry Kollar, 2002/06/14
Re: [Groff] PSPIC error - "missing argument", Werner LEMBERG, 2002/06/13