Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked
From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Is there any wordprocessor in unix
Message-ID: <26420@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 18 Jul 89 15:43:10 GMT
References: <4856@macom1.UUCP> <248@arnor.UUCP> <1044@kuling.UUCP> <1989Jul17.211715.6273@eci386.uucp> <18606@mimsy.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16

In article <18606@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <1989Jul17.211715.6273@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.uucp
>(Greg A. Woods) writes:

>This is true.  n/troff's major failing, though, is (in my opinion)
>in its blind acceptance of virtually arbitrary input.  If you feed
>it modem-noise, it will produce *something*; the only question is
>what.  n/troff is simply not helpful enough at pointing out errors.

You might look at the MKS/SQPS version of troff/nroff for PeeCees.
I've just started using it, but can at least observe that it has
an option similar to some C compilers to provide varying levels of
diagnostic and warning information.  

Perhaps someone will get the message and port this system back to
**IX?