groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Groff] Re: GNU mdoc vs UCB mdoc


From: Werner LEMBERG
Subject: Re: [Groff] Re: GNU mdoc vs UCB mdoc
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:12:57 +0200 (CEST)

> >> > docj.tmac still has it, commented as "parse argument vector
> >> > (recursive)". As far as I can tell this was replaced by the
> >> > doc-parse-args macro, probably in Werner Lemberg's complete
> >> > rewrite of mdoc in March 2001.

Yep.

> > You'd have to ask Werner. I assume he had a good reason; he
> > doesn't normally go in for rewrites for the sake of it, as far as
> > I can see.

Rewriting the mdoc package was mainly an exercise to `modernize' it.
There are no argument limits any more, and it should be more readable
also.  Doing the same for other groff macro packages is on my TODO
list for the year 2034.

> The basic quesion is: I have embedded a .Mx macro similar to .Ox,
> .Nx and so on in my manual pages, which looks like this in the
> embedded version: [...]
> 
> However, the “aV” macro is missing from recent GNU groff versions of
> the mdoc macro package.

Yes.  It's not part of the `official API' and has thus been replaced
with something more verbose.

> How would I best proceed while preserving compatibility to the UCB
> mdoc macro package, with both GNU groff (as used by, for example,
> OpenBSD) and AT&T nroff (as used by MirBSD)?

You can't preserve compatibility due to the complete rewrite.
Instead, you should test whether the old or the new mdoc
implementation is used, and use appropriate clauses.


    Werner

reply via email to

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