> Sent: 11 September, 2026 10:20 PM > Subject: Re: deprecating deroff & unroff (was: More UTP utility wibbles) > Branden Robinson wrote: > > With the addition of `-o` to the grotty(1) options, thus: > > groff -T ascii -P -cbou > > ...I frequently use this techique in groff's automated test scripts. . . . > I've been thinking about[1] adding a `-C` option to grotty to imply all > of `-cbou`, plus a new option I need to add to defeat continuous > underlining mode (`.cu`), which is the only vehicle by which one can > still force grotty to overstrike when `-cbou` is specified. I've never > gotten around to it before because continuous underlining is practically > never used (and requires a special device control command even to use).
Sounds like a good idea. Won’t help me much, because I may be stuck at 1.22.3. But I have a similar option to my front-end to groff. Yeah, a front-end to a front-end ... a story with long historical roots, details of which I shall not bore you with. Nowadays, it works just as well with “-Tutf8” or “-Tcp1252” if you have it. In all fairness, I think I was guided in that direction by something I read almost 40 years ago (I cannot remember what it was). Suffice it to say that we dropped deroff like a hot rock except to feed the spelling checker. As the immortal Yen Lo put it, My dear Dimitri, I keep forgetting that you’re a young country and your attention span is _limited_. It’s always amazing how we keep relearning what we learned and then forgot. Perhaps as it always was and always will be. Jeff Conrad
