FW: Re: [Groff] [off] micro-typography

[Ted Harding]

Oops -- replied to Ralph only, by mistake!
Ted.

-----FW: <address@hidden>-----

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:31:02 -0000 (GMT)
From: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Groff] [off] micro-typography

On 12-Feb-02 address@hidden wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Sigfrid Lundberg, NetLab
>> wrote:
>> > Wouldn't it help to have an extension language, like having GUILE
>> > (GNU's Ubiquitous Intelligent Language for Extension) or PERL
>> > compiled into troff and the ability to such things in a proper
>> > programming language?
> 
>> but with a few conditions: the integration should be real (not only a
>> system call)
> 
> And embedding an interpreter is not the Unix way.
> 
> I'm not arguing for or against embedding, e.g. Python, in troff at the
> moment, I'm just pointing out that it isn't the `good unix mind' that's
> being suggested.

I tend to agree with Ralph here. I believe that what is needed
is some mechanism for the internal intermediate stream in groff
to be examined. For instance, I have long felt the need (for
various reasons, including being able to smoothly implement
continuous underlining over several consecutive lines) to be
able to access details of the current formatted line at the
moment before it is output.

If there were a general mechanism for this, then this information
could be written out to an external program (just like psbb used
to do). and the results recovered for re-use within groff.

Once that was available, then the external program would be
at the choice of the user. This again is in keeping with
"The Unix Way"!

Ted.
--------------End of forwarded message-------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 167 1972
Date: 12-Feb-02                                       Time: 17:25:10
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------