troff:ono.tmac:97: warning: name 'NT' not defined [-w mac]

[g-branden-robinson]

$ nl ono.tmac | sed -n 92,99p
    92  .\"
    93  .de FONT
    94  .       FO \\$1 \\$2
    95  .       .
    96  .       ig NT
    97  .       NT
    98  ..
    99  .de FO \" Called in compatibility-mode

A harmless way to ensure that a do-nothing string/macro exists for the purpose of terminating an ignored block of roff code is to append nothing to it. (The analogous trick for registers is .nr r1 +0.) If the macro (or string) does already exist, it remains unaltered. This operation does the same thing in all troffs known to me and makes GNU troff's warning category "mac" helpful in finding other problems.

.as NT \" empty

[Alhadis]

Yeah, that reminds me: I've used terminator macro names like >> and @@ to terminate both (nested) .de and .ig blocks (usually conditionally), only to learn more recently that those "dummy" macros are, uh, a lot less inert than I assumed they were.

I only found this out after testing Mono with Neatroff, which defines .>> and .<< requests for setting writing-mode direction (LTR and RTL, respectively). So… gonna have to think of multiple dummy macros that aren't in-use (and don't use C0 control characters… 😁)

[g-branden-robinson]

I only found this out after testing Mono with Neatroff, which defines .>> and .<< requests for setting writing-mode direction (LTR and RTL, respectively). So… gonna have to think of multiple dummy macros that aren't in-use (and don't use C0 control characters… 😁)

In my opinion, Neatroff's behaving a bit intrusively with respect to the name space there.

On the other hand, with a maximum identifier length of 2, there are no good solutions.

[Alhadis]

In my opinion, Neatroff's behaving a bit intrusively with respect to the name space there.

The author is Persian, and wrote an entirely novel Troff implementation from scratch in order to typeset documents in Farsi. Right-to-left directionality isn't something that Groff supports (or any other Troff flavour to my knowledge). Which is kind of an embarrassing limitation for a program whose main purpose is placing words on a line.

So all things considered, I think we ought to cut him some slack. Seriously. 😉 (Especially after all the horrific shit your country's subjected his to as of late).

[g-branden-robinson]

In my opinion, Neatroff's behaving a bit intrusively with respect to the name space there.

The author is Persian, and wrote an entirely novel Troff implementation from scratch in order to typeset documents in Farsi. Right-to-left directionality isn't something that Groff supports (or any other Troff flavour to my knowledge). Which is kind of an embarrassing limitation for a program whose main purpose is placing words on a line.

I'm aware of neatroff's feature set and I have expressed admiration for the cleanliness of its code on the groff mailing list.

Support for RTL scripts is definitely something I'd be interested in working with another developer to get implemented in GNU troff.

So all things considered, I think we ought to cut him some slack. Seriously. 😉

He's got it.

(Especially after all the horrific shit your country's subjected his to as of late).

I dissent from the policies of my government in all kinds of ways, including immigration policy and its conduct of warfare against Iran and boats off the coast of South America. For as long as I enjoy free speech, I intend to exercise it to assert my disapproval of billionaires in and out of office, of Christian nationalism, and of the conservative political movement.

[Alhadis]

I intend to exercise it to assert my disapproval of billionaires in and out of office, of Christian nationalism, and of the conservative political movement.

Ah, a fellow Socialist. I see I'm in good company then. 😉

Support for RTL scripts is definitely something I'd be interested in working with another developer to get implemented in GNU troff.

Bidirectional text confuses and terrifies me, which is why I'd like to be able to read a language that uses a right-to-left writing system. Unfortunately, all of the options are extremely difficult for a monoglot Anglophone like myself:

1. Hebrew (difficult)
2. Arabic (on-par with Japanese and Chinese in terms of sheer difficulty level for English speakers. But god damn is its calligraphy beautiful…)
3. Old Hungarian (historic alphabet used only by Hungarian nationalists; plus, Old Hungarian runes read like a Temu-brand ripoff of the most gloriest of runic alphabets, the ᚠᚢᚦᚩᚱᚳ)