[Groff] UTP index - chapter 15

groff

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Groff] UTP index - chapter 15

From:	Larry Kollar
Subject:	[Groff] UTP index - chapter 15
Date:	Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:42:51 -0500

I'll take Chapter 15. We're under way!

--
Larry Kollar        k  o  l  l  a  r  @  a  l  l  t  e  l  .  n  e  t
Unix Text Processing: the Revival
http://www.alltel.net/~kollar/utp

[Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread]

[Groff] UTP index - chapter 15, Larry Kollar <=

Prev by Date: [Groff] Re: address@hidden wrote: <snip />
Next by Date: [Groff] need advice on choosing a macro
Previous by thread: Re: address@hidden wrote: > > Send Groff mailing list submissions to > address@hidden > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/groff > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address@hidden > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address@hidden > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Groff digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Building GROFF (John Poltorak) > 2. Re: Building GROFF (Werner LEMBERG) > 3. Re: Query about .special (Robert D. Goulding) > 4. Re: Query about .special (Robert D. Goulding) > 5. Re: Query about .special (Werner LEMBERG) > 6. UTP - let's start indexing! (Larry Kollar) > 7. Re: Building GROFF (Werner LEMBERG) > 8. Re: Building GROFF (John Poltorak) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 12:13:41 +0000 > From: John Poltorak <address@hidden> > To: address@hidden > Subject: [Groff] Building GROFF > > Is there a FAQ relating to building GROFF? > > I'm hoping to build it on OS/2 and would like to know where to look > if/when I have some problems. > > -- > John > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:45:26 +0100 (CET) > To: address@hidden > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden > Subject: Re: [Groff] Building GROFF > From: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> > > > Is there a FAQ relating to building GROFF? > > Have a look at > > http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~vtgf3mpr/indxos2.htm > > SAWATAICHI Jun <address@hidden> has ported groff 1.17.2 to OS/2; > I don't know whether newer ports are available. > > My final goal is to make groff compile out of the box on OS/2 also: > Some of his changes are already in the current sources, some aren't. > It seems that Jun hasn't much time to work on it... > > In case you are a programmer you could try current CVS snapshots, > providing modifications based on Jun's patches. > > > I'm hoping to build it on OS/2 and would like to know where to look > > if/when I have some problems. > > Write to this list, probably with a CC to Jun. > > Werner > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:55:38 -0500 (EST) > From: "Robert D. Goulding" <address@hidden> > To: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> > cc: address@hidden > Subject: Re: [Groff] Query about .special > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > My second question. Assuming that I can map the characters \[Fi] > > > etc. correctly; how do I get groff to use them automatically for > > > ligatures in text? I assume I need a ligatures entry in the font > > > file; but do the more complex ligatures get added to the line > > > already in DAR, or do I put a line for them in DAX? > > > > What you want is not possible (yet). I wonder whether I shall > > implement something like that. OTOH, the whole ligature mechanism has > > to be redone to enable more ligatures than ff, fi, fl, ffi, and ffl: > > Instead of handling ligatures specially I will probably introduce > > fontsets, making this problem vanish completely. > > > > > Thanks for making this clear - I had half-expected that groff wouldn't be > able to find ligatures in special fonts and automatically replace, say, > `ffi' with \[Fi] (which is an unfortunate limitation - basically makes > expert fonts unusable; I look forward to the `fontset' enhancement). > WHat surprises me, though, is that it cannot find the glyph \[Fi] when it > is *specifically requested* using a \[] construct. I.e., the special font > has a glyph Fi defined, but \[Fi] uses the fall-back instead of the > proper, available glyph. This strikes me as a bug rather than a > limitation. > > Robert. > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:01:38 -0500 (EST) > From: "Robert D. Goulding" <address@hidden> > To: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> > cc: address@hidden > Subject: Re: [Groff] Query about .special > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > > What surprises me, though, is that it cannot find the glyph \[Fi] > > > when it is *specifically requested* using a \[] construct. I.e., > > > the special font has a glyph Fi defined, but \[Fi] uses the > > > fall-back instead of the proper, available glyph. This strikes me > > > as a bug rather than a limitation. > > > > Using .schar instead of .fchar to define a fall-back \[Fi] is a > > possibility but perhaps not the right solution, given that `f' + `f' + > > `i' from the current font usually looks much better than a ligature > > glyph \[Fi] from a different font. > > > > Fall-back glyph definitions can be removed easily. This should work, > > assuming that DAR has no \[Fi] and DAX has: > > > > .fspecial DAR DAX > > .rchar \[Fi] > > \[Fi] > > > > Yes, it does work; thanks very much. Now, at least, I can > substitute by hand some of the ffi s. > > RObert. > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:35:10 +0100 (CET) > To: address@hidden > Cc: address@hidden > Subject: Re: [Groff] Query about .special > From: Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> > > > What surprises me, though, is that it cannot find the glyph \[Fi] > > when it is *specifically requested* using a \[] construct. I.e., > > the special font has a glyph Fi defined, but \[Fi] uses the > > fall-back instead of the proper, available glyph. This strikes me > > as a bug rather than a limitation. > > Using .schar instead of .fchar to define a fall-back \[Fi] is a > possibility but perhaps not the right solution, given that `f' + `f' + > `i' from the current font usually looks much better than a ligature > glyph \[Fi] from a different font. > > Fall-back glyph definitions can be removed easilyRe: [Groff] UTP - let's start indexing!
Next by thread: [Groff] need advice on choosing a macro
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread