🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <423@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>          ...the  Xerox 8010 "Star".  This, or it's
>          newest incarnation, the Xerox 6085, soon  to be  announced, is the
>          world's  ultimate  typesetting,  graphics, and publication quality
>          word-processing system.  Anything which  can  be  done  slowly and
>          painfully with  TROFF or any of it's derivatives, can be done with
>          a few  keystrokes  on  the  8010,  exactly  like  using  any other
>          word-processor functions.  The 8010 beats the hell out of TROFF or
>          any  other  such  package.   The  8010  incorporates  a  1024x1024
>          graphics  screen;    typesetting  functions  appear WYSIWYG on the
>          screen, and  its  graphics  are  good  enough  for  CAD-CAM.  Math
>          symbols,  Greek  letters,  the Cyrillic alphabet, Kanji characters
>          etc. all come easily to  the 8010.   Anyone who  has used  an 8010
>          would get violently ill if he ever had to use TROFF again.
Well, I have a slightly different opinion.  I've used NROFF (not,
admittedly, TROFF), and Stars.  The Stars are fine if you don't have any
fancy formatting to do.  BUT--if you want any of the following:
	1. footnotes (as opposed to endnotes)
	2. automatically numbered foot- or endnotes
	3. automatic section numbering
	4. automatic figure numbering
	5. cross-references to any of the numbers in (2-4) which will
	   automatically change when the original number changes (e.g.
	   if you insert a new figure between fig. 2 and fig. 3, and
	   later in the paper you refer to "figure 3"--now "figure 4")
	6. reverse-indent paragraphs (I'm not talking about paragraphs
	   like these, with a hanging tag, but rather about paragraphs
	   in which the first line is "undented" a fixed number of
	   spaces regardless of the length of the first word--e.g. as
	   in some common bibliography formats)
All of the above are common in "scholarly" papers, and I suspect in many
other disciplines too (TV scripts, plays, ...).  If I'm doing funny
alphabets, then yes, I think I like the Star.  But it's a horror if I
have some particular format I have to follow.  I suspect there are
other thinks it can't do, but maybe there is a work-around, so I won't
show my ignorance.  A Star probably could be made to do most of the above
by suitable reprogramming, although I've long wondered how a WYSIWYG WP could 
do #5.  Until it/ they do, I guess I'll have to stick with N/Troff for some of 
my papers.  I.e. use a screw-driver for screws, and a chisel for...
-- 
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
	..uw-beaver!{uw-june,ssc-vax}!bcsaic!michaelm