Re: [Groff] poll: which macro packages are in common use / and why.

[Pete Phillips]

Hi Robert

    Klaus> Hi, the short story is: I want to poll who is using which
    Klaus> macro package, why, and for what.  For example all You
    Klaus> ms-hackers out there how do You do cross references?  Anyone
    Klaus> doing articles or reports regularly -- which macro package?

We have used mm for everything in the past.  We produce hundreds of
reports and letters every year with it (although, in contrast to you ,
we are moving across to TeX/Lyx for a lot of things, bit by bit).

We use refer for references (it does what we need anyway, although
doesn't have the flexibility of some of the TeX tools), and lbl for
cross referencing (http://www.ugu.com/pub/unix/sec1/lbl.tar.Z).

We use the original mm macros for most reports (I think we had them
when we purchased Softquad troff in the mid 1980's, or they might have
come with our System 5.2 Convergent Technology miniframe, or perhaps
with our Sun Sparcs in the late 80's):

''' \"  UNIX Memorandum Macros - 15.130 of 10/7/82
''' \"  TROFF Version   @(#) mmt.src 15.130@(#)

The reason we use these is they automatically produce a very nice cover
sheet which readers of our reports appreciate (example at:

http://www.smtl.co.uk/~pete/troff/pete-mm-cover-sheet.pdf

).

For the rest, we usually use the groff_mm macros (I'm sure we could
probably rig up a cover sheet like the one above if one of us had enough
gtroff expertise, then we could move to that entirely). 

We have hundreds of standard operating procedurs and test methods in mm
format, and the nice thing about the system is that we can usually (with
a bit of tweaking) print out documents that are 10 or 15 years old
without relying on upgrading to the latest an greatest.

I think we will still be using gtroff for years to come, but moving
across to Lyx/Tex as we go. Certainly our letters etc are moving that
way, and I suspect report generation will as well, just because there is
so much more support for that combination, and Lyx is easier to explain
to new staff, whilst still allowing you to get down and dirty if
necessary. 

We had a look at ms, but they didn't give us the quality of report/cover
sheet etc we needed out of the box.  Not looked at ms for 10 years or
more I'm afraid.

We have 13 prof & tech staff and 3 office staff using mm daily, and once
they get their head around it ("it's not like Word!") it is pretty much
bulletproof. (Or perhaps they don't tell me what they really think).

Pete

PS: If anybody fancies helping write one of the groff_mm cover sheet
packages to fit our needs, please let me know. :-)
--


Pete Phillips, Deputy Director,     |   http://www.smtl.co.uk/
Surgical Materials Testing Lab,     |   http://www.worldwidewounds.com/
Princess of Wales Hospital, S Wales | 
Tel/Fax: +44 1656-752820/30         |   address@hidden