> On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 18:57:25 +0000, David Holland wrote: > > > > The idea of adopting the original troff has come up many times, and as > > far as I can recall the conclusion each time has been that it would > > need quite a bit of work to be suitable, work that nobody seems to be > > very enthusiastic about. If someone has now already done that work, > > maybe it's become a viable option. I really do not know where you got that idea David. It has been blatantly wrong since at least 2005, if not before, as I pointed out in 2009. (and if in any way you or anyone else was suggesting the amount of work needed to adapt any Groff-specific macros in /usr/share/tmac to Troff would be "quite a bit of work", that is clearly very wrong too, especially since 2006) > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 02:11:03PM -0700, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > > > > Of course if _new_ significant documents are being written then perhaps > > > opportunity should be given to do so with some new tools. My personal > > > vote would be for Lout. It vastly improves on what troff can do, but it > > > also effectively replaces all the other associated and necessary tools > > > (pic, eqn, tbl, grap), and it generates PDFs as well. > > > On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 18:57:25 +0000, David Holland wrote: > > > > Lout has come up repeatedly also. I don't know anything substantive > > amount it, but for the most part nobody who does seems to think it's > > particularly suitable. David I strongly object to your statements there. You seem to be the only person with an @netbsd.org address who I can find has said anything negative about the use of Heirloom Troff (or Lout). As I have stated on this or other NetBSD lists at other times, I have used Lout extensively and very nearly exclusively for the past 18 years (i.e. since even before Lout was added to pkgsrc in 1998), and I know a great deal about it (and I'm reasonably certain you will have read my postings about it since I'm the person who would have repeatedly mentioned Lout in places where I think you would have seen such mention, especially as related to NetBSD). In the dozen years before that I used troff extensively and exclusively, and in the approximately 4 years before that when I first began writing documents in electronic form I used troff's progenitors and cousins quite extensively and almost exclusively. In all that time I've neither seen nor heard about anything better or more suitable than Lout for authoring new documents. Especially not as an alternative to and upgrade from the likes of troff (and TeX). (Well, except maybe for Lout's as-yet unavailable successor.) Of course I can only lead a horse to cool clear water.... At Mon, 8 Jun 2015 19:27:34 +0300, Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost> wrote: Subject: Re: Heirloom Troff for NetBSD (was: Removing ARCNET stuffs) > > Yes. I think I am in position to have an informed opinion on Lout, I > love it, but I don't think Lout is suitable for this. You must be thinking of a different version of Lout than I have been! :-) I really don't understand what you're saying here though, especially without further technical explanation of your opinion. (here we're talking only about use of Lout for new documents, not as a replacement for managing what are now troff-based documents in NetBSD) -- Greg A. Woods Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> +1 250 762-7675 http://www.planix.com/
Attachment:
pgpIJcsewhKRU.pgp
Description: PGP signature