Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald
From: ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Groff
Message-ID: <1990Nov15.103411.22444@robobar.co.uk>
Date: 15 Nov 90 10:34:11 GMT
References: <10354@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <1990Nov14.094039.11153@robobar.co.uk> <10375@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Lines: 29

lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes:

> But ancient troff still has the 3 1/2 font limit, which is the primary
> reason I wanted groff.  I don't suppose psroff has a way around that?

Well, you have to issue .fp requests to make them fit in the 4 fonts,
but yes it all does come out correctly -- I get to use all the fonts
in my Postscript cartridge.  Wrapped up in macros, you'd never notice
the extra .fp's anyway.  psroff has a hack to push the .fp out to the
backend so it knows to change fonts.

> groff 0.6 seemed to work okay for me, though gtbl didn't like me to
> say font 3 instead of font B.

>: Question: anyone know if groff has been fixed to handle -mm yet ?
>
> Dunno.

As James says, there are instructions to *make* it work.

This sort of rough edge is basically what makes psroff "production" and
groff "state of the art, but beta" in my estimation.

Oh well.  Please don't read me as putting groff down, I'm not.  It's
just that psroff is slick and works *easily*.  I have both on this
machine, and I tend to use psroff.  Probably because I don't often
need pic.
-- 
ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)