Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site smeagol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!oberon!smeagol!kwan
From: kwan@smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: An oldie and a newie.
Message-ID: <530@smeagol.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Dec-85 13:29:35 EST
Article-I.D.: smeagol.530
Posted: Mon Dec 23 13:29:35 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:49:26 EST
References: <525@smeagol.UUCP> <156@vcvax1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Spacecraft Data Systems, JPL, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 22

In <525@smeagol.UUCP>, Greg Earle writes:
> So, how do you get
> "\n"s into an [nt]roff document without them being interpreted?

In <156@vcvax1.UUCP>, paul@vcvax1 response:
> The way to get a `\' in the output is to use a `\e' in the input.
> So use `\en' to get `\n'.

...as have many others.

Allow me to play dumb for a moment... (cause on this one, I really
am.)  All these responses seem to focus on useing "\e" to get a
literal "\".

1.  Why not use ".eo" or ".ec"?
2.  What effect would using ".eo" or ".ec" have on macros which
    [nt]roff has already read?
3.  What is the recommended way to include source code into a
    document?  (I assume we want to do nothing to it, if at all
    possible, i.e., just read it from the original file.)

		Rick Kwan