[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Groff] Progress report on the portability audit -- and what to do a

From: Eric S. Raymond
Subject: Re: [Groff] Progress report on the portability audit -- and what to do about URLs?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:10:02 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/

Gunnar Ritter <address@hidden>:
> "Eric S. Raymond" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Gunnar Ritter <address@hidden>:
> > > > I believe you are incorrect.  If these definitions are *in the file*,
> > > > won't the Solarix/AIX/HP-UX toolchain evaluate them the same way
> > > > they would evaluate any other local macro?
> > > 
> > > No, I was quoting ".URL and .MTO" which you cut away, and
> > > for rather obvious reason they will not.
> >
> > Um...are we misunderstanding each other?  
> >
> > I have not removed any instances of .URL or .MTO.
> .URL and .MTO are not two-character names.

I'm still missing something.  Are you saying that I should have
changed all of the existing instances of URL and MTO into two-letter

My survey of the viewers out there indicates that long names are portable.
I took for granted that this applies to Heirloom troff aas well, since
you advertise supporting so many groff features.

If you tell me otherwise, then of course the portability constraints just got 
narrower, and the changes I will have to make to the groff manual pages 
will be more intrusive.  I was hoping to avoid that.

But please explain the actual problem so I can address it.
                <a href="";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]