Hi Steve,
At 2024-12-04T13:28:48-0500, Steve Izma wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 12:00:52PM -0500, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Differences in `ne` and `bp` line-breaking behavior
> >
> > I don't see this wording as an improvement:
> >
> > > .ne d Advance drawing position to the next vertical
> > > position trap and spring the trap, if it is
> > > nearer than distance d (default scaling unit v).
> >
> > The proposal uses nonstandard terminology ("drawing position"),
> > and is ambiguously worded. It is easy to misread "if" as applying
> > only to the "spring" clause rather than to the compound of
> > "advance" and "spring".
>
> I'm not sure about "drawing position",It's my term; folks can blame me. > but simply recasting the sentence clarifies or corrects the logic, > e.g.: > > .ne d If the next vertical position trap is nearer than > distance d (default scaling unit v), advance drawing > position to it and spring the trap. > > Maybe "advance the current vertical position to it", since I > believe that \n[.d] becomes equal to the trap position once it's > sprung. Not inside a diversion trap, oddly. See the example I posted earlier in this thread. Nevertheless the claim seems otherwise consistent with user experience. > > Also .ne is effective in the absence of traps, a fact that groff(7) > > misses, too. > > This is news to me. Does it mean that the default page length > automatically creates a trap? Or does .ne have a side effect? As far as I know, Doug is referring only to what I have christened the "implicit page trap". If something more is going on, I would like to know, so I can experiment on it and document it. > The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and > therefore never scrutinize or question. > -- Stephen Jay Gould, *Full House: The Spread of Excellence > from Plato to Darwin*, 1996 Excellent choice of quote for this discussion. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
