Re: [Groff] holistic widow elimination

[Robert Thorsby]

On 08/01/12 09:59:46, address@hidden wrote:
> I've been hesitating about joining in, because (as is
> already beginning to emerge) it is potentially a complex
> question; and also the kind of solution which should be
> preferred is a question of taste, convention, or context,
> as well as convenience of use.
> 
> For myself, I would generally avoid trying to embed such
> things in macros, since a macro is what it is, and will
> lack the "on-the-fly" judgment and flexibility that one
> will usually want to use.

As everyone knows, when the discussion turns to tracking, typesetting has 
assumed the mantle of a black art. Once you use expressions such as "it 
all depends on what looks good" (artist) or "it depends on the 
circumstances of the individual case" (lawyer) you have left science, 
mathematics, computing, and often common sense, far behind.

 
> While I am at it, I would have thought that Robert's use
> of a relative height change \H'+100u' was unnecessary,
> since \H'N' (where N is the current point size) will also do.

Ah, Ted, hoist with your own petard. :-) It was your original suggestion 
(some years ago) on this Forum that I was repeating! But, I like your 
refinement -- apart from elegance, it reduces the risk of mistakes when 
one is making piddling little adjustments to get that bloody word to 
wrap. More than once I have adjusted the s value without adjusting the H 
value; and such a mistake can be difficult to spot.

Robert Thorsby
How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for.
I only coded it. -- Linus Torvalds