[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms
From: |
Keith MARSHALL |
Subject: |
Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro) |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:12:26 +0100 |
In s.tmac, I see ...
.de SH-NO-TAG
address@hidden
.\" Keep together the heading
.\" and the first two lines of the next paragraph.
.ne 3v+\\n[\\n[.ev]:PD]u+\\n(.Vu
.sp 1
.ft B
..
... this being invoked by both .NH and .SH, to establish spacing
and bolding, for the following heading.
As I noted in an earlier thread, there may be a bug here. In fact,
I have now checked, and can confirm that the ".ne 3v..." request in
the above does *not* keep two lines of the following with the header
-- it requests only sufficient space for one blank line before the
heading, one line of heading, and *one* line of the following
paragraph!
If we *really* want to keep two lines of the following paragraph
with the header, then we need to change this definition ...
.
.
.ne 4v+\\n[\\n[.ev]:PD]u+\\n(.Vu
.
.
Alternatively, if we prefer to keep the functionality as is, then
the comment should be changed ...
.
.
.\" Keep the heading
.\" and the first line of the next paragraph together
.
.
On a similar note, the par*start macro requests sufficient space
for the paragraph separating space set in \n(PD, followed by *one*
line of text. While this is probably the behaviour normally expected
of ms, we *could* add some orphan line prevention here, by asking
for space for two lines of text.
I'll gladly provide a patch to implement whichever of these changes
the list membership would prefer -- IMHO, *one* of the above is
required, to eliminate the inconsistency between the comment and
the actual space request for the header, but I have no strong
preference regarding par*start.
Any thoughts, please.
Best regards,
Keith.
- Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro),
Keith MARSHALL <=
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/16
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Keith Marshall, 2004/09/18
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/20
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Keith Marshall, 2004/09/20
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Keith Marshall, 2004/09/21
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/21
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Keith Marshall, 2004/09/22
- Re: Possible Bug in s.tmac (forked from: [Groff] pointsize changes in .NH ms-macro), Werner LEMBERG, 2004/09/23