>> > maybe there is a typo in "5.7 Manipulating Filling and Adjusting"
>> > section "Register: \n[.sss]". In the sentence "Note that the \h
>> > escape produces unbreakable space." the "h" maybe should actually
>> > be a space (in the context of that section).
>>
>> No, I think it's correct, and matches behaviour.
Yep.
>>
>> $ seq 40 | sed '1s/^/.na\n/; 20{N; s/\n/<\\h"3i">/}' | nroff | grep .
>> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
>> 20< >21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
>> 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
>> $
>>
>> It's pointing out how that's unlike .ss's just described behaviour.
Exactly :-)
> Of course it is correct. But I see no relation of \h and .ss. So
> this sentence (although correct) does not make sense here. But "\ "
> is used in the example, for *that* escape the sentence would make
> sense. But if it's really intended there then I don't mind :-)
In the `dense footnote style' example
1. This is the first footnote. 2. This
is the second footnote.
people might try to insert the space before `2.' with \h, which gives
undesired results: The expected behaviour for longer footnotes is e.g.
1. This is the first, really, really long footnote.
2. This is the second footnote.
However, if you use `\h', you get
1. This is the first, really, really long footnote.
2. This is the second footnote.
instead – the horizontal space inserted by `\h' does *not* vanish.
Werner
