Maybe a little more Fortran-friendly?

[urbanjost]

Great Utility. I had to tweek it a little to work with Fortran documenation
where in the SYNTAX section a Fortran procedure usually looks like
function NAME(
or
subroutine NAME(
instead of just
NAME(

It would be nice if your original was more Fortran-friendly instead of primarily
easy to use for C-like syntax so I could just use it directly.

See the results so far at
Fortran Intrinsics

Have your ever thought of adding an option to also generate HTML? You are already
doing the parsing and I find that I very often am converting my manpages to HTML
using manserver(1) or groff(1) which usually ends up in rather poor-quality
HTML. The *roff directives you are generating have 1-1 equivalents in HTML2 so it
seems like a natural and useful extension to your utility.

Thanks again for the great tool!

[mvertes]

I agree that adding support to Fortran would be nice and is certainly achievable. I will look at it.

I've done a variant of txt2man (unpublished) to generate HTML some time ago, so yes, this is something I could consider.

[urbanjost]

Great. I appreciate you taking it under consideration, that is all I can ask Again, thanks for the great utility.

…

On 07/21/2020 6:15 AM Marc Vertes ***@***.***> wrote: I agree that adding support to Fortran would be nice and is certainly achievable. I will look at it. I've done a variant of txt2man (unpublished) to generate HTML some time ago, so yes, this is something I could consider. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #31 (comment) , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHDWN3KQOVASHP44LHWLGOLR4VTETANCNFSM4OSMJPPQ .