Update of bug #64043 (group groff):
Summary: mixing formatting requests with macro calls produces
different unspecified behavior with groff than with AT&T troff => [ms] mixing
formatting requests with macro calls produces different unspecified behavior
with groff than with AT&T troff
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #9:
[comment #6 comment #6:]
> The application of inter-display distance after equations does not
> appear to be documented in _groff_, however, and I'm happy to do that.
I'm not sure whether this was done.
[http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=1c39f5d80 Commit
1c39f5d80] (pushed about a month after comment #6 was posted here) included
"Describ[ing] the handling of display distance in more detail." It doesn't
address equations specifically, but they may be included under the umbrella of
"display macros."
Here's a recap of the relevant changes, which were made in the Texinfo manual,
the ms.ms document, and the groff_ms(7) man page.
The clause "The distance stored in the 'DD' register is inserted before and
after each pair of display macros, replacing any adjacent inter-paragraph
distance" had the phrase after the comma removed. A new sentence was then
inserted after this one, expanding that phrase into: "In 'groff' 'ms', this
distance replaces any adjacent inter-paragraph distance or subsequent spacing
prior to a section heading." (The wording has since been tweaked but retains
that essence.)
Branden, was this intended to address the above-quoted documentation update
you offered to make?
Submitter, does the text added in this commit address the changes in vertical
space you observe between groff 1.22.4 and 1.23.0?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?64043>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
