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>