Re: pretty printer output

In article <3adved$rtq@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, bobpell@aol.com (BobPell) writes: |> gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) posted: |> > Sebastian v. Bomhard (svb@Space.NET) wrote: |> > : Don't scream if you read this: Drawing lines and boxes is not a job |> for |> > : database programmers. I use what is there: tbl and troff (actually |> groff). |> > : There is all you need, and portable between printers, too (Ok, not |> very |> > : many printers, I have to admit). |> > <clipped...> |> > |> > I used tyo think this until several customers offered big $$$ for the |> > capability or threatend to look for other softare if I couldn't produce |> |> > reports that looked like they were comming from a word processor. |> > |> > Ther easiest way I've found short of writing the same report many times |> |> > for many printers is to set up a table with all of the capabilities of |> a |> > particular printer in one record. <clipped...> |> > |> > Nothing worthwhile is easy. This is definately not easy. |> |> Buy WordPerfect for UNIX. Make pretty output in WP with merge fields. |> Output the desired Informix information into a text file. Run a WP macro |> from within a 4GL program to merge the text file with the WP document. |> Tada! That is what I used to do before - generate reports (not from Informix, though) and format them using an MS Word macro under Windows. However, the approaches are exactly the same - someone does it with troff , someone with WP, someone with MS Word. It is only the cost that differs - our clients used to crib about having to buy MS Word 2.0 "unnecessarily", even though most were already on to MSW1.0, and were anyway going to upgrade! I guess the oiginal troff approach was because the WordPerfect approach never crossed the mind, and even if it did, Seby was good enough with troff not to bother about anything else! Troff comes on the house, so no extras required, too. Ramsub