I'm not sure I understand the issue here. For the purposes of line-wrapping and word-breaking, `.ll 0` is essentially the same as `.ll 1u`... isn't it? Even in situations when a typesetter's quantum of motion accommodates at least a single character, the output is still the same; i.e.,
I am \n[.l]u long. yields I am 1u long. but also I am 0u long. Am I missing something? On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 03:36, G. Branden Robinson < g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm proposing this on behalf on John Gardner, who raised it in a > Savannah ticket[1]. > > I asked him: > > >> What do you expect the semantics of an output line length of zero to > >> be? > > He said: > > > Like this: > > > > This is your line-length > > > > This > > is > > your > > line- > > length > > on > > drugs > > > > Basically, print as many characters as you can fit up until the next > > break opportunity (which could be whitespace or a hyphenation > > opportunity, depending on hyphenation settings). > > This would be an extension to the semantics of the output line length; > Heirloom Doctools troff (at least) instead clamps the output line length > to the horizontal resolution. > > Does anyone have any thoughts on or objections to this? > > Regards, > Branden > > [1] https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61089 >
