Update of bug #64450 (group groff):
Assigned to: None => barx
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #7:
[comment #6 comment #6:]
> [comment #5 comment #5:]
>> the added comment section lists -p as one of the options nroff
>> doesn't support, despite nroff supporting this option
>
> Remedied in [http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=2c9186054
> commit 2c9186054].
>
> The modified comment weakens the case, I think, for rejecting -g, -G, and -j.
> They're switches of convenience, giving the user an easier way to invoke the
> preprocessors if desired, and fewer differences to have to remember between a
> troff and an nroff command.
This is a good point.
> A user who wants to run those preprocessors, even in nroff mode, will grumble
> a little if their accustomed troff command line fails to work and they have
> to construct a pipeline. A user who _doesn't_ want to run them can just omit
> the switches. So it helps some users and doesn't hinder the rest.
Right.
Further follow-up. In the year-plus since I last commented, I've seen more
_nroff_-using _make_(1) files in the wild and am consequently now more shy
about just seizing `-e` and `-s` as I initially proposed.
But, I still feel it would be useful to support running their corresponding
preprocessors from _nroff_.
I had a brainwave. What if we seized yet another option letter which would
change the way GNU _nroff_ interprets `-e` and `-s`? (Or indeed, *enables*
those flags to that GNU _nroff_ interprets them at all, as currently it
ignores them.)
This way we can constructively coach "Makefile" writers. If you've got "nroff
-e -s" in your Makefile and _groff_ happens to be your _nroff_ provider,
nothing changes or breaks.
*BUT*, we can support a "GNU mode" to _nroff_, such that one can opt-in to it,
and enjoy seamless interaction with _eqn_(1) and _soelim_(1) via `-e` and
`-s`.
What should we name this sweet new option?
Well, either `-g` or `-G`, standing for *G*NU, would be *g*reat, but
unfortunately _groff_(1) has already *g*(u)rned and *g*rapped all over them.
So they're out.
And I am shy of squatting on a letter that _groff_(1) hasn't used already,
because I don't want to foreclose future development.
That means selecting an option letter that _groff_ already uses that no
_nroff_ user would ever employ.
So how about `-X`?
-X Use gxditview(1) instead of the usual postprocessor to
(pre)view a document on an X11 display. Combining this
option with “-T ps” uses the font metrics of the
PostScript device, whereas the “-T X75”, “-T X75-12”
“-T
X100”, and “-T X100-12” options use the metrics of X11
fonts.
Nobody running *roff to get terminal or line printer output ever wants an X11
window to pop up. So GNU _nroff_ can seize `-X` for its own purposes.
Theoretically, in the future we'll enhance _gxditview_ so that it can
interpret _trout_ prepared for X11 devices. And a sophisticated _groff_ user
might really want to do that. But for them we'll still have "groff -X -T
ascii" and similar. Even in that future I think that anyone running _nroff_
wants terminal (or line printer) output. "That's right, damnit!" I imagine
them adding.
So how 'bout it?
Kicking to Dave for feedback.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64450>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
