>> This patch I actually dislike since it essentially means that after
>> DEVTAG there is always a line break, which is too strong an
>> assumption
>
> Sorry, you probably mean the resetting of the horisontal position.
> I now get it.
Yep. Sorry for being imprecise.
Werner
Werner Lemberg:
> This patch I actually dislike since it essentially
> means that after DEVTAG there is always a line
> break, which is too strong an assumption
Sorry, you probably mean the resetting of the
horisontal position. I now get it.
Sorry for bothering,
Anton
Werner Lemberg:
> This patch I actually dislike since it essentially
> means that after DEVTAG there is always a line
> break, which is too strong an assumption
There's no such assumption.
-- If a call to DEVTAG is followed by a break then
its side effect is eliminated.
-- If a cal
> Attached is a patch for devtag.tmac. I wasn't sure about the naming
> of strings intended for local use (tag-request) and of the macro
> (TAG). The patch for m.tmac was attached to my previous massage, so
> use what you think is better.
This patch I actually dislike since it essentially means
Werner Lemberg:
> > > I don't think so. .DEVTAG-EO-H is very low-
> > > level (and since of its beta nature, neither
> > > .tag nor .taga are documented at all); it's a
> > > bad idea IMHO to hardcode any typographical
> > > behaviour with it.
> >
> > I still cannot agree with it, becaus
>> I don't think so. .DEVTAG-EO-H is very low-level (and since of its
>> beta nature, neither .tag nor .taga are documented at all); it's a
>> bad idea IMHO to hardcode any typographical behaviour with it.
>
> I still cannot agree with it, because the modification in question
> is the removal of
