rconn%brl@sri-unix.UUCP (09/28/83)
From: Rick Conn <rconn@brl> I thought this would be of interest. I have been using a DUAL, and the man output is clean for a CRT, so something is certainly different from the SYSTEM III and BRL (JHU) implementations here. Looks like the diff may boil down to using either man <file> | col | ul or man <file> | clman Anyway, I'll probably go on using man <file> | clman except on the DUAL, where just man <file> is fine. Rick ----- Forwarded message # 1: Received: From Ucb-Vax.ARPA by BRL via smtp; 26 Sep 83 22:07 EDT Received: by ucbvax.ARPA (4.12/4.7) id AA10224; Mon, 26 Sep 83 19:06:51 PDT Date: Mon, 26 Sep 83 19:06:51 PDT From: dual!fair@Berkeley Message-Id: <8309270206.AA10224@ucbvax.ARPA> To: rconn@brl Subject: CLMAN.c Uh, the construction man <command> | col | ul Will do what CLMAN does, and probably better, since the two were designed for that purpose (nroff postprocessing). Erik E. Fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA ucbvax!fair {ucbvax,amd70,zehntel,unisoft}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation P.S. Berkeley's man command already does the call to `col | ul' by itself. ----- End of forwarded messages