Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
.ds eL \|.\|.\|.\&
sentence goes on\*(eL
where the first \| provides that extra spacing between the last word and
the first dot. Yet, the spacing is smaller than a full space which is a
little unseemly.
I'm not sure from Werner's explanation whether he assumes the usage with
the space between the word and ellipsis:
.ds eL .\|.\|.\&
sentence goes on \*(eL
I have used this approach for years. It has by far the best
appearance. If I omit a few words (less than a sentence), I use:
starting words .\|.\|. ending words.
Dropped words at start of a quote:
".\|.\|.\|quoted words."
Dropped words at end of quote:
"quoted words\|.\|.\|."
I'm wondering, though, if it might make more sense to use:
.ds eL \&.\|.\|.\&
so you don't get a narrow space between the opening double
quote and the first dot in the ellipsis when dropping words at the
start of a quote. You then would use:
"\*(eL\|quoted words"
(I always hand coded the ellipsis so I skipped the \& part.
Never used a .ds approach.)
I suppose that one concern I have is an excess of defined strings
leads to mental overload trying to remember what strings have been
defined. In the interests of productivity, I try to keep it as
simple as practicable, but not simpler. For example, compare:
.ds eL \&.\|.\|.\&
or
.ds eL \|.\|.\|.\&
and
text\*(eL
versus
text\|.\|.\|.
Whether the .ds is worth the trouble depends on how many times you
use the ellipsis in a file versus the need to remember another
string definition. By hand coding, I have absolute control over
the result and can see what will happen by looking at the inline
sequence. I also don't have to think about or remember the leading
\| or \& in the string definition.
Clarke
