On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 22:31:40 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >> DD isn't mentioned afaik in groff_ms or in usd-17. That leads me
> >> with two questions:
> >
> > Agreed! It should be.
>
> `DD' *is* mentioned:
>
> Other settings
>
> Reg. Definition Effectiv
On 04-Nov-2013 18:52:16 hoh...@arcor.de wrote:
>
> Once I stumbled over the .sp feature, to increase the output line
> number counter (.nm) at every call to .sp, and ask myself, if here is
> another "harmless" vertical movement intended to be used instead. For
> instance to have a paragraph spacin
> I had to study your example to understand it. It looks very
> robust because, except for TS/TE, it leaves the ms macros out
> of the equation.
That was mainly for two reasons: (a) I wanted to demonstrate the
general principle independent of any macro package, and (b) I'm
not really proficien
Once I stumbled over the .sp feature, to increase the output line
number counter (.nm) at every call to .sp, and ask myself, if here is
another "harmless" vertical movement intended to be used instead. For
instance to have a paragraph spacing.
--hh
>> DD isn't mentioned afaik in groff_ms or in usd-17. That leads me
>> with two questions:
>
> Agreed! It should be.
`DD' *is* mentioned:
Other settings
Reg. Definition EffectiveDefault
[See in-line below]
On 02-Nov-2013 22:05:01 James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:16:02 +0100 (BST)
> (Ted Harding) wrote:
>
>> Follow-up: I have found the source of your pronblem (the one
>> to do with vertical displacement). When a table is oujtput using
>> the .TS macro, a "display
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:13:16 +0100
Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> > The main text stretches across the page (one column),
> > but I want the tables adjacent so that they can be more
> > easily compared.
> > What's the right way, please?
>
> I would do it with diversions (see attached roff source and
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:16:02 +0100 (BST)
(Ted Harding) wrote:
> Follow-up: I have found the source of your pronblem (the one
> to do with vertical displacement). When a table is oujtput using
> the .TS macro, a "display drop" vertical spacing is added (and
> the same happens for .EQ using eqn, an
> The main text stretches across the page (one column),
> but I want the tables adjacent so that they can be more
> easily compared.
> What's the right way, please?
I would do it with diversions (see attached roff source and
resulting pdf).
.\" tbl
.\"
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013, James K. Lowden wrote:
> My basic approach is
>
> .mk
> .TS
> ... table 1 ...
> .TE
> .rt
> .DS 3i
> .TS
> ... table 2 ...
> .TE
>
> If the table is too long for the current page, and lands on the next
> one, that doesn't work well at all, so I have
>
> .KS
> .mk
> .TS
>
Follow-up: I have found the source of your pronblem (the one
to do with vertical displacement). When a table is oujtput using
the .TS macro, a "display drop" vertical spacing is added (and
the same happens for .EQ using eqn, and in other contexts).
You can get rid of this (in ms macros) by setting
On 26-Oct-2013 16:07:47 James K. Lowden wrote:
> I'm confused about how best to lay out tables side by side.
> I'm using the ms macro set. The main text stretches across
> the page (one column), but I want the tables adjacent so that
> they can be more easily compared.
>
> My basic approach is
I'm confused about how best to lay out tables side by side. I'm using
the ms macro set. The main text stretches across the page (one
column), but I want the tables adjacent so that they can be
more easily compared.
My basic approach is
.mk
.TS
... table 1 ...
.TE
.rt
.DS 3i
.TS
... table 2
13 matches
Mail list logo
