Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:05:59 PST From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> To: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> Cc: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>, Wolfram Schneider <wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de>, bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp: .Fx and .Os macros in groff, FreeBSD] Message-ID: <199902060405.UAA20537@mango.parc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Feb 1999 19:22:20 PST." <199902060322.MAA01583@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199902060322.MAA01583@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp>you write:
>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.)
No need to ignore it; it's easy to implement:
.ie "\\$1"2" \&\\*(tNFreeBSD\\*(aa 2.0\\$2
.el \&\\*(tNFreeBSD\\*(aa \\$1\\$2
>Then, how should Os macro, in doc-common, be fixed? I am no
>nroff/groff expert. Does the following snippet look OK?
We can special-case the value 2 here too;
.if "\\$1"FreeBSD" \{\
. ie "\\$2"2" .ds oS FreeBSD 2.0
. el .ds oS FreeBSD \\$2
.\}
>We should fix these macros in time for 3.1-RELEASE. Would you do it,
>or shall I?
Well, I'd like to see if there's anyone who knows why the macros
were the way they were ("because nobody really knew *roff" is a
likely answer) and if there's a reason not to make this kind of
change...
Bill
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902060405.UAA20537>