> just an idea: the problem would go away if the `.so' request could > be told (by a second argument to the request) to rerun all necessary > preprocessors on the sourced file before inserting it (the > preprocessors could be those specified in the groff call or > explicitely specified to the `.so' reguest). would this be a good > idea (apart from the someone_has_to_implement_it aspect)?
I don't think that this is a good idea. It is far too complicated to implement, and I can easily construct examples where a second expansion isn't enough, this is, you would need a third level of expansion. Why do you insist on passing the contents of a string register to `.so'? It's rather easy to construct an input file `so-data' on the fly (using a Makefile, for example) which just contains a single line .so <your file> and this file is then included with .so so-data in the main data file. Werner _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff