Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!jes From: jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) Newsgroups: comp.text Subject: Re: What features would you like in GNU troff? Message-ID: Date: 16 Jun 89 14:00:02 GMT References: <742@dtscp1.UUCP> <10959@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <21@nx32s.anduk.co.uk> <779@pcrat.UUCP> <355@wjh12.harvard.edu> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Distribution: comp Organization: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Lines: 31 In-reply-to: bb@wjh12.harvard.edu's message of 13 Jun 89 19:38:42 GMT > Keep working at it. It isn't too hard, but it isn't for novices. > >>> Troff has to be taught this. > No, AT&T troff is perfectly capable of this, *as is*. > Maybe, you have to be taught troff. :-) Having spent a *lot* of time trying to get troff and the standard macro packages to do very normal kinds of things, I find the attitude implied by this very disturbing on several counts, despite the smiley. I think these points are relevant to the GNU troff discussion. First, I need a writing environment that is as efficient as possible. That's why I can't stand the usual WYSIWYG model - I don't like having to wait every time I adjust the page layout. In my experience, troff (actually, otroff, which may be part of the problem), fails in this point because I end up spending too much time fighting the software: trying to write or modify complex, unreadable, undocumented macros. Maybe the one of the best contributions GNU troff could make would be a truly comprehensive reference manual, users manual, and real-world macro package. Then instead of taunting us poor slobs who have to write text, not macros, you can just say: "RTFM!"