Re: [Groff] Re: Bug in mm macro package

[Clarke Echols]

When I used AT&T troff at HP about 15-20 years ago, there was no
".fam" request available, and \fR *always* went to "Times Roman".
The advantage of using \f1 through \f4 in text and the .fp request
was that one could rearrange the typography of a 3000 page manual by
changing the font selected by each .fp request in the macro package,
which meant one needed to alter no more than four lines.  I used
New Century Schoolbook for fonts 1, 2, and 3, and Courier for font
4.  They were specified by four lines in the manpage macros I was
using that I had modified from the AT&T to suit my own purposes.

I assume the .fam request came along when groff was invented...

I still like specifying font positions, but I never got involved
in using a font option in the command line.  The big advantage I
see for using .fp is that you can standardize fonts for an entire
set of manuals or other printed products coming out of a shop,
and you don't expose yourself to some individual choosing an
alternate font in a commercial publication without approval.

Clarke

Werner LEMBERG wrote:

 <snip>

> The patch you provide is problematic.  In GNU troff, positions 1-4 are
> associated with font styles, not with real names.  This makes it
> possible to change the base font very conveniently without touching a
> `standard' document which uses R, B, I, and BI (and S) and nothing
> else.  (Do this with either the `.fam' request or with the -f command
> line option of groff.)
>
> In my opinion it is an abuse to select fonts directly with numeric
> positions.  The very reason why .ft and \f accept numerical values is
> that number register .f (which gives the ID of the current font)
> returns a numerical value.
>
> With other words, if the mm macros use \f[B], the bold series of the
> current font family (as set with the .fam request) should be used.

  <snip>

> Comments?
>
>     Werner