On 04/10/2011 00:00, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Kristaps,
>
> Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 09:53:33PM +0200:
>> On 02/10/2011 17:40, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 05:04:18PM +0200, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
>
>>>> What sort of behaviour is most reasonable when providing a man
>>>> manual to the new -Tman?  I think this should be ironed out before
>>>> the release. The mandoc manual says "-Tman only with mdoc" and, if
>>>> man is provided to -Tman, outputs nothing (like -Tlint).
>>>>
>>>> It makes the most sense to me to output the original file (after
>>>> preprocessing, I guess).  All this requires is a duplicate buffer in
>>>> read.c (conditional on -Tman being present to avoid overhead in
>>>> normal usage).  I don't like the idea of putting out an error (or
>>>> nothing at all) because it special-cases modes for input.
>
>>> Agreed, just giving back the original input (maybe reformatted) sounds
>>> like the best approach.
>
> I agree that makes sense if the code is parsed (.man ->  AST)
> and then freshly formatted (AST ->  .man) in the sense of a validating,
> normalizing parser.
>
> Oops, now that i think about it, maybe i went the wrong way with
> mdoc ->  man?  Maybe i should have implemented that as a two-step
> translation?  First mdoc-AST ->  man-AST, then man-AST ->  man-code?
> Maybe i should start over?  Hm...
>
>> Putting some code to the idea...
>
> Not that i'm really opposed to your small patch - but i'm not
> sure this is terribly useful either, so far it's mostly
> a fancy cat(1).
>
> In case we maybe want to implement a real normalizing parser later,
> i'm both OK with erroring out until we get there or putting in
> your fancy cat(1).
>
>> (Sorry for the churn, I ordered the
>> mandoc.h functions.  They're the same except for the mandoc_keep()
>> and mandoc_getkeep() additions).  This isn't quite commit-ready, but
>> a start.  Basically, I ask for a keep buffer if OUTT_MAN is
>> specified. This needed some machinery to expose the parser to the
>> front-end.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Well, as a placeholder for something better later, the general
> idea seems OK.

Hi,

Here's a polished patch for this.  It's more or less what you saw 
earlier, but has to strip `so' calls from -mman input (else you'd get an 
`so' followed by the file contents).

No-ways?  Oks?

Kristaps