[TUHS] For all you troff hackers...

[TUHS] For all you troff hackers...

[Ronald Natalie]

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 70546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160208/0a51fb99/attachment-0001.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20160208/0a51fb99/attachment-0001.bin>

[TUHS] For all you troff hackers...

[Random832]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016, at 12:55, Ronald Natalie wrote:
> Email had 2 attachments:
> + PastedGraphic-1.tiff
>   94k (image/tiff)
> + smime.p7s
>   3k (application/pkcs7-signature)

Doesn't really seem troff-related (where's \e?) - seems more like a
shell/regex thing, particularly given the hovertext.

[TUHS] For all you troff hackers...

[markus schnalke]

Hoi,

thanks for pointing to that! I would have missed it but now I had a
good laugh. :-)

> part 1     image/tiff                 68K

Just for the record, it's that one: https://xkcd.com/1638/


Grepped* my troff sources and found no more than four backslashes
in a row, but at least I got 16 in one line:

	.ds _O '\f(SCChapter \\\\n(H1\ \ \\\\*(_C\fP''\\\\n(PN'  \" right

Seems I haven't gone deep enough into troff to need more than
four backslashes to manage my way back up into daylight. :-)


The Heirloom doctools' mm macros impress a lot more. They have
16 subsequent (!) backslashes:

$ fgrep  '\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' /usr/local/lib/doctools/tmac/*   
/usr/local/lib/doctools/tmac/mmn:\!\\!.if \\$2=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\$1 .)T 1 1 "\\*(}0" "\\$4" \\\\\\\\nP \\*(}3
/usr/local/lib/doctools/tmac/mmt:\!\\!.if \\$2=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\$1 .)T 1 1 "\\*(}0" "\\$4" \\\\\\\\nP \\*(}3


You see, this XKCD cartoon is definitely about troff!


meillo


*) Nice thread about grep, btw.