Re: [Groff] problem with `refer'

[Sigfrid Lundberg, NetLab]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

...

> Are you talking about a real problem or just a hypothetical one?  Have
> you ever made use of this obscure feature?  The new code would of
> course warn if e.g. `.]).' or the like is found, saying
>
>   Macro `]).' ignored.
>   Use option -x to make `).' a reference postfix.
>
> For the sake of orthogonality and to remove an illogical restriction I
> really favour a change of the default behaviour.  Additionally, GNU
> refer already has an alternative, better syntax to specify <pre> and
> <post>, using the `[' and `]' keywords within a `.[ ... .]' block.

I've got a dozen or two articles using these features. They are
history now (either published or rejected), and I don't expect to
format them in the future. Anyway,  a paragraph containing a few
references could look like (look at the Mock and Forbes citation):

------
Source
.PP
Ellner's idea traces back to
.[
#
Trivers 1974
.]
concept of \(lqparent-offspring conflict\(rq
that suggests that the interest of parent and offspring
need not correspond.
This concept has primarily been applied in
animal behaviour by a number of authors.
.[see
[]
Mock Forbes
.] for a review
\&
.[
#
Parker Macnair  monogamy 1978
.]
were the first to produce a thorough theoretical treatment.
Their point of view is similar to that of Ellner, in as much as
they use seperate fitness functions for parents and offspring.

-----
After groff -R -T ascii -ms

     Ellner's idea traces back to  Trivers  (1974)  concept  of
"parent-offspring  conflict" that suggests that the interest of
parent and offspring need not  correspond.   This  concept  has
primarily  been  applied  in  animal  behaviour  by a number of
authors (see Mock and Forbes, 1992 for a review).   Parker  and
Macnair (1978) were the first to produce a thorough theoretical
treatment.  Their point of view is similar to that  of  Ellner,
in  as  much as they use seperate fitness functions for parents
and offspring.

------

Note that I was forced to use both the long and the short formats in
the same manuscript. Note that "Trivers (1974) concept" above, really
should have been

        Trivers' (1974) concept

I never really loved refer. Nowadays I write a majority my texts in
XML (xhtml or text encoding initiative, and transform the to groff_ms
by XSLT) so the references are there before they see the groff suit of
programs. This is even worse, and I've long intended to return to
refer, such that XSLT will produce the appropriate

.[
...
.]

for me.

Cheers

Sigge