[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] condition: OR of two string comparisons

From: Ted Harding
Subject: Re: [Groff] condition: OR of two string comparisons
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 22:10:50 -0000 (GMT)

On 15-Nov-2014 06:26:27 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> Here is another idea. Use the existing (;) notation eg as follows
>>>     (Ex; expr )
> This is a nice idea and indeed a possible solution to the problem.
> However, I think it's probably too restricted to cover all aspects
> people were discussing here.
>> Werner, have you considered enhancing expression syntax in the past?
> No. :-)
>> If so, what were you ideas for fitting it into the existing syntax?
> After reading this thread I think the best solution is to define a new
> request, for example `.ifx' (`if' extended).  Then it would be
> straightforward to define a new, flexible syntax that is not hampered
> by backwards compatibility.
>     Werner

I've been following this thread, but somewhat bewildered bacause
I'm not clear as to exactly what it is trying to achieve.

However, I'd like to make one small contribution.

It has been suggested to use "$" as a marker for the extended type
of expression which it is sought to incorporate. Please note that
"$" is the default delimiter for in-line eqn material, and since
eqn will see it before troff does it could cause all sorts of
trouble! In particular, if there is only one occurrence of "$",
then eqn will work through to the end ofthe document looking
for the second (closing) "$", with the result that eqn would
in effect throw away everything that came after that solo "$".

On such grounds, I think a notation like that suggested by Werner
above (".ifx") is a much better idea! Maybe it could even be
a macro?

Best wishes to all,

E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <address@hidden>
Date: 23-Nov-2014  Time: 22:10:46
This message was sent by XFMail

reply via email to

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