[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Wanted: testers for heavily revised grog(1)

From: Dave Kemper
Subject: Re: Wanted: testers for heavily revised grog(1)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:40:40 -0500

On 7/1/21, G. Branden Robinson <> wrote:
> I have previously characterized Dave Kemper as having a fluttering
> cape--he has flown to the rescue again already!

Yeah, I don't know about that -- I found that from reading the man
page, not running the code.

And honestly, my groff command lines are simple and fairly invariant,
so I don't really have anything I can test much of grog's
functionality on.  I'm not much use for testing the program itself,
I'm afraid.

I do have one other observation about the man page, though.  Listing
all the options grog *does* infer will tell the knowledgeable groff
user which ones it doesn't.  But since grog is aimed at inexpert
users, is it reasonable to list at least some of the options a groff
file could plausibly need that grog won't output?  For instance, in
modern times a commonly needed preprocessor is probably preconv, but
grog does not know about groff's -D, -k, or -K options.

reply via email to

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