On 14.03.25 09:33, Robert Goulding wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:14 AM dvalin--- via GNU roff typesetting system
> > AHA! Squirrelled away under "4.6.5.8 Keeps, boxed keeps, and displays", > > there's a non-wrapping paragraph, i,e, .LD. That fixes the unwanted > > wrapping, and .SH overrun, causing swathes of bold. > > > > > I'm just an ordinary user - but I'm not sure why you're putting lines of > code after .SH. The usual format in any document is: > > .SH > <Name of Heading> > .LP > Text (including keeps and other things for keeping code together. Ah, well, I haven't yet acquired the groff facility of an ordinary user yet, but what works for me is: --------------------- .SH 2 Prerequisites: .LD A full groff installed, not just groff_basic: $ apt-get update $ apt-get install groff Then gain a working overview of: $ man groff_ms as we'll specify -ms in the groff invocation, to use the Manuscript macro package. .SH 2 --------------------- Thus .LD serves as a non-wrapping paragraph, running until the next .SH, which may have another .LD, or a .LP, if wrapping is required. There seems to be no obvious mileage in specifying a wrapping paragraph with .LP, then countermanding that with a .LD, when the latter suffices for the whole section. My (naive) reading of "4.6.5.8 Keeps, boxed keeps, and displays": Macro: .DS L Macro: .LD Begin (DS: kept) left-aligned display. is that .LD is not kept, but just a "display", which "turns off filling", so functions as a non-wrapping paragraph, without further ado. It renders just fine - no snags so far. I'm not wild about inserting formatting bumpf if it's not needed ... at this level of document simplicity. Now if I ever need a wrapping paragraph with interspersed code or command lines, then I'll doubtless have to ascend to the complexity level you describe. (Maybe tomorrow? ;) I hope that makes sense. Erik
