From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:57:13 +0200 From: Carsten Kunze To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <1179414908.1374571.1407927433550.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail06.arcor-online.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Many bugs in eqn(1) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0f331d46-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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