Re: gpic terminal

[James C. <clo...@jh...>]

>>>>> "EAM" == Ethan A Merritt <sf...@us...> writes:

JC>> Why was the gpic term disabled?

EAM> It seems reasonable to reduce the number of default terminal types
EAM> by omiting ones that are only of historical interest, or used only by 
EAM> legacy systems.

gpic matches neither of those.

EAM> In any case the gpic terminal is still there - "disabled by
EAM> default" is not the same thing as "deleted".  You can configure it
EAM> in if you like.

With that magic ./configure invocation?

It is commented, not #ifdef'ed.  An --enable-gpic/--disable-gpic is
easier to deal with when using automated build systems.

JC>> Troff continues to have users, 

EAM> Does it?  Who?  Do they use the development version of gnuplot?

Of course.  The groff lists have an active community.  It is in all of
the major distributions.  And development continues, such as the pdf
output device which was added several months ago.

And being part of current distributions means that anyone who tracks
gnuplot cvs (for any reason, such as tracking other teminals or wanting
libcerf) and uses roff will hit that intersection.

I really don't see how anyone could think groff were not in active use.

EAM> Perhaps, but only if someone can attest this is indeed the case.

My post did.

EAM> The documentation was written about 15 years ago, at the same time
EAM> as the driver itself.

So?

EAM> It would be valuable to know if the gpic terminal actually works
EAM> with the current gnuplot.

Yes it does, as anyone can test.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cl...@jh...>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6