Re: [9fans] Many bugs in eqn(1)

[Carsten Kunze <carsten.kunze@arcor.de>]

> first, I don't understand German (I am Czech), but I used google translate,
> hopefully getting the meaning.

Sorry for that!

> Second, it's generally better (unless it's really personal or highly
> technical)
> to keep the discussion within the mailing list, since then other people
> can also contribute; I am far from an expert. Thus I have brought the
> discussion back to the list.

Since nobody seems to use troff on P9 I regarded it as off-topic.

> http://9fans.net/archive/2011/11/106

Thank you!

> some more ...
> http://9fans.net/archive/?q=sykora+eqn&go=Grep

I can't believe that TeX should not produce better results, but
thats really OT...

> I would say that groff is *much, much* more tested software.
> P9 troff is basically dead.

Not dead ... lets call it freezed or so ...

> I'd rather say that p9p software is the source these days.

Really?  Ok, if I compare the sources it looks like this.  Is this
true for troff only or for p9p in general?

So p9 troff posts may be better done on the p9p list?

> troff is a macro language.

This I completely don't understand.  If someone has much time
and uses only low level requests than the word "macro" should
be improper?

What is not a macro language, i.e. what do you suggest to use instead?

> Page makeup by postprocessing text formatter output
> by Kernighan & Wyk

I also do not understand that.  It is possible to write very good macro
packages for troff.  Also TeX can produce very good documents.  Ok,
this is OT again.

Carsten