[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] grog and mom.
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] grog and mom. |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:23:17 +0200 (CEST) |
> After fixing that, I found some existing problems, e.g. the first egrep
> passes through many more lines than intended. However, on testing my
> changes I find grog.sh and grog.pl give different results on the same
> file, so they clearly don't encompass the same logic.
>
> Can we pick one, preferably the more portable grog.sh, and work on
> that one being correct? What advantage does the perl version have?
I'm a bad shell *and* a bad perl programmer, so I really can't
comment. I fully agree with you that having two versions is not
necessary. The advances in autoconf show what is really possible in
shell programming, so perhaps it is a good idea to concentrate on
perl.sh, using only standard tools (as documented in autoconf).
Will you do that?
> As for adding -mom detection, that's easy enough by checking for
> .PRINTSTYLE or .START. But -mom documents use .PS and .TS so that
> triggers pic and tbl command line options.
Oh, oh. This has slipped my first reading of the mom docs. Using .TS
and .PS in mom is not a good idea... Peter, any alternative ideas?
> I know "Mom has not been tested with any of the groff preprocessors
> (eqn, grap, grn, pic, refer soelim, tbl), although she works fine
> with .PSPIC). Interaction with them is not really in her design
> mandate", but re-using well-known pre-processor `tags' presumably
> causes problems unless GNU pic's behaviour of only matching /^\.PS$/
> is being relied upon?
I fully agree.
> What do people think grog's route should be? If -mom then ignore .TS,
> .PS, etc.?
My preference would be a change in the mom macros.
Werner
Re: [Groff] grog and mom.,
Werner LEMBERG <=