🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Jul30.182131.1924@decuac.dec.com> mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum) writes:

> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

> >There's no such thing as a PostScript version of nroff or troff.  Because
> >both nroff and troff generate a generic format that requires post processors
> >to convert to the output device you want.

> 	Damn, I'll have to delete my copy of groff, then.

> 	I dunno - it's not "real" [nt]roff, but it takes [nt]roff input and
> spews PostScript out the other end. That's close enough to a PostScript
> version of [nt]roff for me, thankyouverymuch.

> mjr.

No, Chris is right (he usually is - at least when it comes to troff related
subjects).  As he said above, troffs require postprocessors/drivers to produce
anything but "a generic format".  He also stated:

>As far as "free" troffs, the only full-blown implementation is groff.  Which
>comes with PostScript, DVI, tty (ASCII) and X windows drivers.

As part of the groff package is a program which is actually called "groff"
but it in itself is *not* a troff.  It is simply a program that calls some
others, including "gtroff" which *is* a (di)troff and one of the drivers
Chris mentioned.  For example, if you want PostScript output it would pipe
the output of "gtroff" to the program "grops" which is a *postprocessor*
that converts the "generic format" (which is ditroff) into PostScript.

Joe V. Moss