paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) (04/16/91)
On all the other troffs I run, troff -t sends its (processed) output to stdout. IBM doesn't have the -t option, which makes it difficult to use the same scripts that I run everywhere else. I've got two questions: - is there a way to duplicate the -t behavior of troff in the IBM product that I've missed in the info page? - is this bug/feature going to be fixed/changed with 3005 (and psroff)? Thanks. -- Pat Wilson Systems Manager, Project NORTHSTAR paw@northstar.dartmouth.edu
woan@nowhere (Ronald S Woan) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr15.202022.14455@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) writes: >On all the other troffs I run, troff -t sends its (processed) output >to stdout. IBM doesn't have the -t option, which makes it difficult >to use the same scripts that I run everywhere else. I've got two >questions: > - is there a way to duplicate the -t behavior of troff in the IBM >product that I've missed in the info page? > - is this bug/feature going to be fixed/changed with 3005 (and psroff)? While "psroff -t" does indeed work with 3005, with ditroff "-t" seems unnecessary unless I am missing it's function as it normally outputs to stdout anyway which is why you need to use "troff -Tibm3812 -man xwd.man|ibm3812|enq" to print to an IBM 3812 printer (enq to actually send it to the printer), for instance... Just try "troff filename" and see what comes out... -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) (04/16/91)
woan@nowhere (Ronald S Woan) writes: >In article <1991Apr15.202022.14455@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) writes: >>On all the other troffs I run, troff -t sends its (processed) output >>to stdout. IBM doesn't have the -t option, which makes it difficult >>to use the same scripts that I run everywhere else. >While "psroff -t" does indeed work with 3005, with ditroff "-t" seems >unnecessary unless I am missing it's function as it normally outputs >to stdout anyway which is why you need to use "troff -Tibm3812 -man >xwd.man|ibm3812|enq" to print to an IBM 3812 printer (enq to actually >send it to the printer), for instance... Just try "troff filename" >and see what comes out... Well, you're right that "troff filename" prints to stdout, so perhaps I can use this as a workaround. Most troff's that I'm familiar with (and that documented in the BSD manuals) output to the "phototypsetter" *unless* one uses the -t option to divert to stdout. Maybe the way it's done here makes more sense, but it's _not_ the way it's historically been done, which is a bit annoying when you're in a heterogenous environment... Thanks. -- Pat Wilson Systems Manager, Project NORTHSTAR paw@northstar.dartmouth.edu
woan@nowhere (Ronald S Woan) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr16.132006.1015@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) writes: >Well, you're right that "troff filename" prints to stdout, so perhaps >I can use this as a workaround. Most troff's that I'm familiar with >(and that documented in the BSD manuals) output to the >"phototypsetter" *unless* one uses the -t option to divert to stdout. >Maybe the way it's done here makes more sense, but it's _not_ the way >it's historically been done, which is a bit annoying when you're in a >heterogenous environment... All ditroffs that I have seen behave this way, so you will encounter this more and more as the old CAT troffs are retired. Anyway, blame it on AT&T or else buy their DWB for all of your systems and then they'll all behave this way... :-) This is nothing compared to when I went from the old awk to nawk and had to start figuring out what the incompatibilities that were killing off my old scripts were... -- +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan woan@cactus.org or woan@austin.vnet.ibm.com + + other email addresses Prodigy: XTCR74A Compuserve: 73530,2537 +
freese@dalvm41b.vnet.ibm.com ("Bradley T. Freese") (05/15/91)
paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) writes: > On all the other troffs I run, troff -t sends its (processed) output > to stdout. IBM doesn't have the -t option, which makes it difficult > to use the same scripts that I run everywhere else. I've got two > questions: > - is there a way to duplicate the -t behavior of troff in the IBM > product that I've missed in the info page? > - is this bug/feature going to be fixed/changed with 3005 (and psroff)? The closest documented option is '-a'. However, this "sends a printable ASCII approximation" to standard output. I can't speak to the future plans for 'troff', but you might want to contact your local IBM representative and make your case for the change. Market pressure works.
tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) (05/15/91)
paw@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) writes: >On all the other troffs I run, troff -t sends its (processed) output >to stdout. Not that this helps you a lot but "troff -t" is old-style troff. The AIX V3.1 troff is actually ditroff. This basically means that you need a different set of tools. The upside is that ditroff was designed to have a backend and isn't as kludgey as old-style troff was. It even has descent documentation. Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT speak for IBM. IBM VNET: PAULCC AT AUSTIN 512/838-9748 | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif