Re: [Groff] Query about .special

[Werner LEMBERG]

> What surprises me, though, is that it cannot find the glyph \[Fi]
> when it is *specifically requested* using a \[] construct.  I.e.,
> the special font has a glyph Fi defined, but \[Fi] uses the
> fall-back instead of the proper, available glyph.  This strikes me
> as a bug rather than a limitation.

Using .schar instead of .fchar to define a fall-back \[Fi] is a
possibility but perhaps not the right solution, given that `f' + `f' +
`i' from the current font usually looks much better than a ligature
glyph \[Fi] from a different font.

Fall-back glyph definitions can be removed easily.  This should work,
assuming that DAR has no \[Fi] and DAX has:

  .fspecial DAR DAX
  .rchar \[Fi]
  \[Fi]


    Werner