An oldie and a newie.

[Richard Kwan]

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'.

...as have many others.

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 "\".

1.  Why not use ".eo" or ".ec"?
2.  What effect would using ".eo" or ".ec" have on macros which
    [nt]roff has already read?
3.  What is the recommended way to include source code into a
    document?  (I assume we want to do nothing to it, if at all
    possible, i.e., just read it from the original file.)

		Rick Kwan