Re: [Groff] Problem with diversion

[Robert D. Goulding]

Dear Werner:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> Below is my solution using a diversion.  The reason for \n[dn] always
...

Thank you very much for your detailed comments on the macros, and *very*
helpful tips on traps/diversions etc.  I'd figured out a couple of the
elementary things since my first post (enclosing the call to a diversion
between .nf .fi requests, for instance) but most of them I would never
have figured out on my own, either from the existing documentation or
trial and error - especially the nifty .ss trick (I'm not sure I
understand yet *how* this works, or how anyone would stumble upon it...).
Your version does exactly what I want - I will now complicate matters
entirely by trying to get a *second* series of footnotes below the
first...  One thought: given the caution you show is needed in using the
.br request, perhaps this passage in groff_tmac.5 (which I was clinging to
as a definitive statement of how to use diversions!) might be amended:

"To be on the secure side, enclose everything that has to do with
diversions into a pair of line breaks; for example, by amply using .br
requests.  This rule should be applied to diversion definition, both
inside and outside, and to all calls of diversions.  This is a bit of
overkill, but it works nicely."

By the way, do you think it would be useful to have a simple macro set
like this in the info documentation, together with line-by-line
commentary, just so that a beginner can see how traps, diversions and
environments fit together - the full macro packages are probably too
complex to be of use pedagogically.  If I get this critical edition macro
set working, at the least I'll post a heavily annotated version on a
webpage, together with your tips and others I've harvested from various
sources.

Thanks again for your help and patience with my first faltering steps in
macro programming

Robert.

-- 
Robert Goulding
Society of Fellows
Joseph Henry House
Princeton NJ 08544