Follow-up Comment #19, bug #50770 (group groff): [comment #17 comment #17:] > However, you might not be wrong in a practical sense. > > 5.28.1.3 Diversion Traps > ........................ > > A diversion is not formatted in the context of a page, so it lacks page > location traps;
Right, and combined with a clause from the .ne description in the
manual--"'ne' tests the distance to the next page location trap"--I don't see
any practical way an .ne inside a diversion can have any effect (though I have
not tried to test the limits of this), and it's not even clear what such an
effect might be, since a page break within a diversion is also meaningless.
> It is possible that it's not a good idea to use `PSPIC` inside a
> diversion for other reasons,
The PSPIC documentation explicitly countenances such usage: groff_tmac(5)
says, "To use PSPIC within a diversion, we recommend extending it with the
following code."
I have successfully used PSPIC within a diversion (in order to use register dn
afterwards to find the vertical size of the image) even without the
recommended code amendment. That's not to argue that it's a "good idea,"
necessarily, just that in some circumstances it works (and as a side benefit,
sidesteps the bug at issue in this ticket).
> It does seem to me that I should be able to draw a horizontal rule 1u
> (or even 0u?) below a `PSPIC`-included image without having to do a
> reverse vertical motion first. I haven't played with it much, so if
> that's not the status quo, that feels like a bug to me.
I have also not tested this, but the .ne under discussion here shouldn't
affect this, as .ne only decides whether to insert a page break. If there's a
problem with vertical space below the PSPIC image, that's a separate issue.
> Time to start abandoning goals for groff 1.24. :(
I disagree with the ":(" here. I think the number of 1.24 goals, and the
complexity of some of them, was wildly ambitious -- which is a good thing.
But it's fine to ultimately let reality check some of that ambition. And
anyway, version 1.24 is merely one stop on the groff journey.
I'd argue that having a consistent release schedule is better than any
particular set of changes making it into any particular release. 1.23, if
anything, did a little too much: its NEWS section dwarfs that of almost any
previous release. 1.24's NEWS section is already starting to rival it in
length. Even if code froze today, it would be a very respectable leap
forward.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?50770>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
