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