Andre Poenitz wrote: >> option 2) he uses only w -> we get current cvs behaviour >> option 3) use a mixture of the two, choosing the one that spans less >> vertical space (the inlined version uses a line less, but then has less >> horizontal space to accomodate the remaining rows and so there will be >> probably more of them). Probably option 3) is better, but I'm not sure. >> Implementing 1) or 3) wouldn't be very hard, only we have to put the >> metrics calls for childrens inside the rebreak loop (again, because andre >> made some work to take it out...). > > That's not a restriction. It seemed naturally to me at some point of > time, but if it hampers implementation of a good scheme, we can mangle > inset metrics calls and rebreak loop again.
Yep (I though I exposed it as a good thing we'd have to give up, not as a restriction). >> 1.3.x didn't have this problem as for instance a float is just >> display()ed and so /completely disregards/ indent. Latex does the same >> for instance with a 'here, definitely' float. > > We could ignore the intend in paragraphs with a text inset as first item > in all three solutions as well... Funny, I proposed the same thing and got accused of boycotting your cleanup. :-) As Georg pointed out, this is what we do latex-wise in 1.4cvs. So it *would* make some sense. Btw, we didn't in 1.3.x. > I would go for 3, i.e. mangle the loop and the metrics call, pass the > remaining width as an additional MetricsInfo member, let the inset > decide on its width (i.e. either 'tall, but in line' or 'displayed'). > WRT the indentation I think I don't care too much. Passing w-i instead > of w as textwidth would already help... > >> Any /constructive/ comment is welcomed. > > How should I know what qualifies as constructive comment... You probably missed the thread defining it (by antonymia). Alfredo
