Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:22:20 +0900 From: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: Wolfram Schneider <wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de>, bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp Subject: Re: [yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp: .Fx and .Os macros in groff, FreeBSD] Message-ID: <199902060322.MAA01583@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Feb 1999 10:48:06 PST." <199902051848.KAA10802@mango.parc.xerox.com> References: <199902051848.KAA10802@mango.parc.xerox.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
>Is it too stupid to wonder why these macros aren't simply, say,
[...]
>Plus, the extra \\*(aa is just clutter; the font and size have
>already been reset by the first \\*(aa. Also, positional parameters
>are replaced with empty strings if they don't exist (at least in
>our groff), so the macro could be further reduced to:
>
>.de Fx
>.nr cF \\n(.f
>.nr cZ \\n(.s
>.ds aa \&\f\\n(cF\s\\n(cZ
>\&\\*(tNFreeBSD\\*(aa \\$1\\$2
>..
Your version of the Fx macro works here. (Except that the old version
prints "FreeBSD 2.0" for ".Fx 2", whereas your version prints "FreeBSD
2". I thinks this is minor and benign, and we can just ignore this
difference.)
Then, how should Os macro, in doc-common, be fixed? I am no
nroff/groff expert. Does the following snippet look OK?
.de Os
.ds oS Null
<some other defs>
.if "\\$1"FreeBSD" \{\
. .ds oS FreeBSD \\$2
.\}
<some other defs>
..
We should fix these macros in time for 3.1-RELEASE. Would you do it,
or shall I?
Kazu
yokota@FreeBSD.ORG
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902060322.MAA01583>