An oldie and a newie.

[Joseph S. D. Yao]

In article <530 at smeagol.UUCP> kwan at smeagol.UUCP (Richard Kwan) writes:
>>In <525 at smeagol.UUCP>, Greg Earle writes:
>>> So, how do you get
>>> "\n"s into an [nt]roff document without them being interpreted?
>In <156 at vcvax1.UUCP>, paul at vcvax1 response:
>> The way to get a `\' in the output is to use a `\e' in the input.
>> So use `\en' to get `\n'.
>Allow me to play dumb for a moment... (cause on this one, I really
>am.)  All these responses seem to focus on useing "\e" to get a
>literal "\".
>3.  What is the recommended way to include source code into a
>    document?

The problem is that all too often text which you think is just going
to go in and come out actually gets caught in a diversion and re-
processed elsewhere and elsewhen.  This was the problem with the old
solution of multiple escape chars: how many escapes escape an escape?
Similarly, how many levels of .eo<NL>\.eo<NL> should we use?

I believe there's a way to include something at the last minute (after
most all processing's done), but it escapes me at the moment ...
-- 

	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy at seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}