Follow-up Comment #13, bug #50770 (group groff): I understood the purpose of comment #10 as explaining the mechanism of the behavior, which to me was a less interesting question than whether the behavior should be changed, so I didn't pay it much mind in writing comment #11.
But as I look at comment #10 closer now, I don't think I agree with its
analysis (at least as I understand it--Deri, please correct me if I'm getting
it wrong).
[comment #10 comment #10:]
> After .sp 64 the text "Line 1" is on line 65. PSPIC causes a
> break, to force the previous line of text to be output, it
> will now be on line 66. This is the 1v, since calling PSPIC
> causes the break to the next line, and now it needs room for
> the graphic of 2pt, but since the top of the graphic is
> alligned to the base-line of line 66, there is no room.
This explanation, as I read it, would mean that the graphic would be kicked to
the next page regardless of any .ne call: if the drawing position is as low on
the page as allowable (the baseline of the lowest possible line), and the next
requested drawing will go below that point, a page break is the only option,
.ne or not.
But (testing with the input files from the original submission, with the ".sp
64" modification therein described) removing the "+1v" from .PSPIC's ".ne"
line shows that it is in fact the .ne, not the act of drawing the graphic,
that triggers the page break:
* With PSPIC's "+1v" intact, the behavior is as described in the original
submission: the graphic and "Line 3" are pushed to a new page.
* With PSPIC's "+1v" removed, the graphic is at the bottom of the first page,
and only "Line 3" is pushed to the next page.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?50770>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
