Follow-up Comment #4, bug #58946 (project groff):
OK, if I'm reading you right, in the big picture, the existing ms/pdfmark
macros are more prototype / proof of concept than production-level
implementation. If this is accurate, the current Summary is as good as any.
Just one point of clarification:
[comment #3 comment #3:]
> I merely cobbled the current incarnation of spdf.tmac
> together, while writing pdfmark.ms; it became a conveinent
> "dumping ground" for supplementary convenience macros, which I
> used within pdfmark.ms, and in hindsight, would have been better
> implemented as document-local macros. XN is one such, (and one
> which exhibits implementation failings, which I never managed to
> successfully resolve); there are others, which could similarly
> be considered for factoring out, as document-local macros.
Document-level within pdfmark.ms, you mean? Are the macros you speak of (XN,
et al) not general-purpose enough to include in pdfmark.tmac? I'm wholly
unfamiliar with pdfroff (and ms, for that matter), so this question is rooted
in my fundamental ignorance.
> I've also observed some issues which may be best address
> within pdfmark.tmac, but these should likely be addressed by
> way of separate tickets).
Any issues you've come across, please do open tickets for them, so there's a
full record of what remains to be done.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58946>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
