groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Groff] \*[SN] question


From: joerg van den hoff
Subject: Re: [Groff] \*[SN] question
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:23:10 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 04:16:06PM +0000, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> Joerg van den Hoff wrote, quoting Tadziu Hoffmann:
> >>> another question: wouldn't it be wiser to emit a warning in
> >>> s.tmac a la
> >>> 
> >>> "warning: register `SN' already defined. cannot use it for
> >>> section number. use SN-(NO-)DOT directly or remove `SN'"
> >>
> >> Hmm, this is a matter of debate, but I would say "not necessarily":
> 
> Nope.  The answer here is a definite `no', for the following explains
> pretty much how it's intended to be used; see groff_ms(7).
OK, I understand your point.
> 
> >> for example, assume you want section numbering according to
> >> DIN 1421 (ISO 2145), i.e., without the trailing dot.
> >> Then you could say (in principle - see note below)
> >>
> >>   .ds SN-NO-DOT
> >>   .als SN SN-NO-DOT
> >>
> >> and you wouldn't want to be annoyed with a warning for
> >> something you expressly requested.
> >>
> >> Note: The above doesn't (yet) work, because NH explicitly
> >> uses SN-DOT in the header.  However, I see no reason it
> >> couldn't use SN.  Werner?
> >
> > with regards to NH behaviour this sure would be better. did'nt know that
> > there is a DIN/ISO regulation for that kind of thing, but anyway 
> omitting
> > the trailing dot probably is the nicer variant (but maybe not for level
> > one sections?).
> 
> It was I who added the SN-DOT/SN-NO-DOT extensions for 1.19.2 ms, and,
> IIRC, I documented their intended behaviour in groff_ms(7), and in the
> groff info file.
> 
> FWIW, I too was unaware of the DIN/ISO standardisation relating to this.
> I chose to explicitly use SN-DOT within the NH definition, simply to
> preserve existing behaviour, while allowing the user to choose which
> format should be exposed for SN, if he wished to refer to it in any
> context *after* an NH call, e.g. in a section number reference, (where
> I tend to prefer the SN-NO-DOT form).
> 
> It would be trivial to change NH itself, to use the preferred SN format
> in the heading it emits.  I've no strong preference either way; it would
> depend only on how strongly we wish to preserve the classical behaviour.
> Tadziu's suggestion would provide enhanced flexibility: the classical
> behaviour would remain the default, but the user would have the choice
> of preferred style in *all* contexts, and could always access the
> alternative by explicit reference to SN-DOT/SN-NO-DOT on demand.

I, at least, would welcome this change. 
> 
> Regards,
> Keith.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]