[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Groff] \F request?
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: [Groff] \F request? |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:36:18 +0200 (CEST) |
> Wouldn't \f[] and \F[] (an empty name) the better way to go.
An excellent idea! I like this very much. What do others think? We
could deprecate \fP in favor of the new syntax; in contrast, \FP would
only support the new syntax, i.e., accessing family P.
> Maybe you could require font and fontfamily names to start with a
> letter (A-Za-z). This woud give you save namespaces for future
> features to implement, without risking compatibility problems.
I think this is a too severe limitation. One of the greatest benefits
of groff IMHO is that identifiers can consist of almost anything.
Werner
- Re: [Groff] \F request?, Bernd Salbrechter, 2002/04/11
- Re: [Groff] \F request?,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: [Groff] \F request?, Jon Snader, 2002/04/11
- Re: [Groff] \F request?, Colin Watson, 2002/04/11
- Re: [Groff] \F request?, ralph, 2002/04/11
- Re: [Groff] \F request?, Werner LEMBERG, 2002/04/11
- Re: [Groff] \F request?, ralph, 2002/04/15
[Groff] \f[] implemented, Werner LEMBERG, 2002/04/14