Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelcor.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!denelcor!lmc From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.unix Subject: Re: System N history correction Message-ID: <624@denelcor.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 20:41:48 EST Article-I.D.: denelcor.624 Posted: Sat Dec 15 20:41:48 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 00:23:43 EST References: <44@mot.UUCP> <263@utcs.UUCP> <396@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorado Lines: 18 Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:11100 net.unix:3123 > > ms(7): the -ms macros (due to obvious rivalry with -mm) > True (I think mm is better). It may be a lot better (or at least more complicated (oops, flexible)), but since they both can live together, there is a lot of documentation written in the former, and there are a few advantages to -ms (like loading a lot faster), then why was it just dropped? On this same vein, why is there not a command that can be included in the source text that informs n/t/roff of the macro package to be used on the text? It seems like the obvious thing to do. I don't think .so was designed for that. Oh, well, just a question rolling around that this gave me an opportunity to ask. -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc