From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luis Anaya Subject: Re: Features and stuff I've been working on. Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:45:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: <3476.1346164642@alphaville> <87ipc1htcj.fsf@altern.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55933) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T70Nh-0001wP-Aa for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:45:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T70Nd-0004xt-0T for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:45:41 -0400 Received: from blu0-omc1-s2.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.13]:49104) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T70Nc-0004xh-Sc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 04:45:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ipc1htcj.fsf@altern.org> (Bastien's message of "Thu\, 30 Aug 2012 06\:55\:08 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" Bastien writes: > but the first line says it's org-groff-mom.el... Yes, I need to clean that code up. That's why it's in the development branch still. >> org-groff-mom.el :: Groff exporter using MOM's macros. This one is >> almost complete. (http://www.schaffter.ca/mom/mom-01.html) > > How much duplicate code with org-e-groff.el? If the amount is not [chop...] > should merge them somehow. This would require some thought, but it has been on my radar. The reason why this is tricky is because even though they both use Groff, their behavior is different in some cases. There are a lot of items that are shared among them, like tables fonts and picture handling, but there are some constructs that have a totally different behavior. Notably: 1. MM defines numbered headings with .H and unumbered with .HU. MOM asks you to defined the type of heading you want at start. 2. MM terminates all constructs, MOM does not in some cases. For example .DS C/DE for centralizing in MM but in MOM I have to specify the next type of justification after a .CENTER which may not correspond to the previous justification type. 3. Letter macros work slightly different, but not horrible. But MOM letter macros are unforgiving on the order in which the Macros are called in. 4. Font definitions are slightly different \fB vs \*[BOLD] but MOM macros can use \fB just as well. 5. Colors are handled slightly different. MOM is a lot smarter on color handling than MM, but MOM is ok with using Groff commands on colors. The bottom line, considering that there's a lot of shared code, I think it's doable to merge both, Now that I have a working MOM exporter I should be able to accomodate for nuances on each set during merge. > > This looks very useful. Please share the code on this list when you > think it's ready for inclusion. > >> org-e-groff.el :: I need to push this to Org's Git. I do not think I want to wait until I go through the exercise of merging MOM and MM's sets into one file to get that out of the door. Now, back to bed. (allergies are killing me). -- Luis Anaya papo anaya aroba hot mail punto com "Do not use 100 words if you can say it in 10" - Yamamoto Tsunetomo