randall@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson) (12/07/90)
In article <1990Dec7.000432.6440@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, reich@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dick Reichenbach) writes: >NROSRC.arc seems to be just the animal I need. But it is shipped in source >only. [ some material deleted to save bandwidth :-) ] >Back to the point. I need a reference to the Computer Innovations 2.00 >compiler. (C, I belive) Or an already compiled NROFF formatter, Or a gracious >soul with the CI2.00 compiler that would be willing to compile the program for >me. I don't understand why you'd need any particular brand of C compiler, most all will compile NRO. I'd suggest that you look into getting GAWK and Henry Spencer's AWF program. It could be modified to handle macro packages other than -man and -ms (which are supplied) and frankly it works better than the NRO formatter did when I tried to use it. AWF is available from one of the sources archives near you (c.s.misc or maybe c.s.unix ) and GAWK is widely available in both source and binary form. I'd suggest that you get a fairly recent version of GAWK rather than an older one. SoftQuad and Elan and Mortice Kern Systems (MKS) I think are among the commercial vendors selling a full-blown nroff port to MSDOS. If you use it a lot, it would be worth considering buying a commercial port. Good Luck, Ran randall@Virginia.EDU
teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec7.154008.9373@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Ran Atkinson <randall@Virginia.EDU> writes: > [ stuff deleted ] > >I'd suggest that you look into getting GAWK and Henry Spencer's AWF program. >It could be modified to handle macro packages other than -man and -ms >(which are supplied) and frankly it works better than the NRO formatter did >when I tried to use it. > >AWF is available from one of the sources archives near you (c.s.misc or >maybe c.s.unix ) and GAWK is widely available in both source and binary >form. I'd suggest that you get a fairly recent version of GAWK rather >than an older one. > [ stuff deleted ] > >Good Luck, > > Ran > randall@Virginia.EDU Best to my knowledge, the original AWF (Amazingly Workable Formater) DID NOT WORK on the 16 bit machines, ie under MSDOS. However, I do remeber that someone claimed to have ported it to MSDOS... Since I myself am also interested in a nroff(ish) beastie, could someone confirm this?? --Nino -- Janet: n.margetic@uk.ac.lon.ioe \ Nino Margetic Earn/Bitnet: n.margetic%ioe.lon.ac.uk@ukacrl.bitnet \ University College Internet: n.margetic%ioe.lon.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\ London, UK Uucp: ...!mcvax!ukc!educ-isis!n.margetic \(+44)(071)387-9300/x5313
randall@Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec10.191405.6058@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) writes: >Best to my knowledge, the original AWF (Amazingly Workable Formater) >DID NOT WORK on the 16 bit machines, ie under MSDOS. However, I do >remeber that someone claimed to have ported it to MSDOS... Since I >myself am also interested in a nroff(ish) beastie, could someone >confirm this?? Since AWF is written in the Awk Language, whether the AWF works should depend on whether your Awk interpreter works properly, not on your OS or hardware. I suspect that older versions of GAWK, which had problems which are fixed in more recent ones, might have had problems -- not just on MSDOS but all systems. In short, I question whether it was an AWF problem rather than a problem with some people's older versions of GAWK for MSDOS. I personally use MKS Awk and have seen no problems. If anyone has run into problems that are due to AWF and not due to an erroneous or incomplete version of the Awk language, I'd be interested in hearing about them and the author of AWF probably would be too... Ran randall@Virginia.EDU Disclaimer: I just use AWF, I had nothing to do with its development or distribution... :-)
w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) (12/11/90)
WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.2.0.74] Directory PD1:<MSDOS.TXTUTL> NROFF1.ZIP B 34371 901210 Unix V7 nroff clone with source for MS C 5.1 Keith -- Keith Petersen Maintainer of SIMTEL20's MSDOS, MISC & CP/M archives [IP address 26.2.0.74] Internet: w8sdz@WSMR-SIMTEL20.Army.Mil or w8sdz@vela.acs.oakland.edu Uucp: uunet!umich!vela!w8sdz BITNET: w8sdz@OAKLAND
teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec10.223321.2738@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Ran Atkinson <randall@Virginia.EDU> writes: >In article <1990Dec10.191405.6058@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) writes: > >>Best to my knowledge, the original AWF (Amazingly Workable Formater) >>DID NOT WORK on the 16 bit machines, ie under MSDOS. However, I do >>remeber that someone claimed to have ported it to MSDOS... Since I >>myself am also interested in a nroff(ish) beastie, could someone >>confirm this?? > >Since AWF is written in the Awk Language, whether the AWF works should >depend on whether your Awk interpreter works properly, not on your OS >or hardware. > *** I quite agree. What I ment to say was: AWK run out of memory while running AWF. At the moment I'm not sure which version of AWK was I running when I tested the AWF, but it could have been either GNU AWK v.2.10 or 2.11. I'm not sure which is the most current version, so I'd like to hear from people who run AWF and AWK under MSDOS (no additives please :-). >I suspect that older versions of GAWK, which had problems which are >fixed in more recent ones, might have had problems -- not just on >MSDOS but all systems. In short, I question whether it was an AWF >problem rather than a problem with some people's older versions of >GAWK for MSDOS. I personally use MKS Awk and have seen no problems. > >If anyone has run into problems that are due to AWF and not due to an >erroneous or incomplete version of the Awk language, I'd be interested >in hearing about them and the author of AWF probably would be too... > >Ran >randall@Virginia.EDU > If my memory still serves me, the problem with the original AWF as distributed by Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu), when running under MSDOS, was with nested loops in the AWF script, and the person who later claimed that he/she has done the "port" to MSDOS, said that he/she only changed AWF to reduce the number of levels in nested loops. To be honest, I haven't tried running the AWF script since the time it was originally released (after my first trial has failed). N.B. If I rememeber correct, Henry Spencer himself was very skeptic about running his script on 16bit machines (see README file in the original distribution of AWF - comp.sources.unix, v23, issue 27; released Sept 7th 1990). --Nino -- Janet: n.margetic@uk.ac.lon.ioe \ Nino Margetic Earn/Bitnet: n.margetic%ioe.lon.ac.uk@ukacrl.bitnet \ University College Internet: n.margetic%ioe.lon.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk\ London, UK Uucp: ...!mcvax!ukc!educ-isis!n.margetic \(+44)(071)387-9300/x5313
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel) (12/13/90)
In article <1990Dec11.191456.10816@ioe.lon.ac.uk> teexnma@ioe.lon.ac.uk (Nino Margetic) writes: >If my memory still serves me, the problem with the original AWF as >distributed by Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu), when running under >MSDOS, was with nested loops in the AWF script, and the person who later >claimed that he/she has done the "port" to MSDOS, said that he/she only >changed AWF to reduce the number of levels in nested loops. >To be honest, I haven't tried running the AWF script since the time it >was originally released (after my first trial has failed). >N.B. If I rememeber correct, Henry Spencer himself was very skeptic >about running his script on 16bit machines (see README file in the original >distribution of AWF - comp.sources.unix, v23, issue 27; released >Sept 7th 1990). I did not port awf to DOS but I got AWF running last night under OS/2 with GAWK 2.11.1. I did only modify the awf script for path names etc. and a bug in my SH with "(cmd; cmd ...) >file" but nothing in the awk passes. Maybe it's just a problem of available memory? It worked well, the regression test was 100% ok and it formatted another man page correctly. That means, AWF *works* with 16bit machines if they only have enough (process) address space. Besides GAWK, AWF also needs SH (and SED, CAT, RM) which may cause memory shortage under DOS if you run GAWK from within a SH script. Kai Uwe Rommel -- /* Kai Uwe Rommel * Munich * rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de */