Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 8:31 AM G. Branden Robinson wrote: > It isn't, yet. What you have seen is a Savannah bug report about it.[2] > It was filed anonymously. ("Who _was_ that masked man?" Dave Kemper, I > reckon.) Guilty. I (sometimes) anonymously file tickets in which I have no personal i

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On 13.10.24 15:31, G. Branden Robinson wrote: [replying only to the lists since you're clearly subscribed, or otherwise following them] Hi Joerg, hi branden, At 2024-10-13T12:36:23+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: On 13.10.24 11:24, G. Branden Robinson wrote: it seems it would probably b

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

[replying only to the lists since you're clearly subscribed, or otherwise following them] Hi Joerg, At 2024-10-13T12:36:23+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > On 13.10.24 11:24, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > it seems it would probably be best to just agree to disagree and move > on, but ... Where w

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On 13.10.24 11:24, G. Branden Robinson wrote: Hi Joerg, hi branden, it seems it would probably be best to just agree to disagree and move on, but ... At 2024-10-13T11:03:52+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: but I really believe the line should never have been deleted in the first place (

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

Hi Joerg, At 2024-10-13T11:03:52+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > but I really believe the line should never have been deleted in the > first place (I think the working hypothesis should better be "even if > I do not see why it is there and even if it seems superfluous to me, > it is there for a

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

tadziu, I missed your mail/suggestion regarding reinsertion of the `.ll -8n' request in .XA and only today became aware of it due to the reverted commit (so too late to confirm that indeed this fixes the main issue perfectly -- you know that already ;)). thanks a whole lot for pointing this o

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

[returning to this after postponing it last week] [replying to 2 messages; Joerg inadvertently replied to me only privately with one of them, but graciously extended permission to quote him on the list] At 2024-10-03T15:33:11+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > thanks for bothering to reply so thor

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

> > Of course the macro also needs to be upgraded to properly format > > multi-line TOC entries, but that's a different problem. > Anyone want to volunteer? :) I just realized it is not necessary. The TOC mechanism in ms is very general. It requires the user to provide content for the TOC bet

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

At 2024-10-04T22:23:40+0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > I don't have any evidence other than > > a) empirically, it fixes Joerg's problem. > b) logically, it is necessary, as the leaders and the > pagenumber are attached to the end of the line, so one > needs to guarantee that there is

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

> If we establish that this is a bug [...] > But I need evidence of that, and as yet I don't have it. I don't have any evidence other than a) empirically, it fixes Joerg's problem. b) logically, it is necessary, as the leaders and the pagenumber are attached to the end of the line, so

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

Hi Joerg, At 2024-10-04T14:49:29+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > attached is an example. I tried to condense it and reduce those > MHEAD,SHEAD macros to a minimum (they are doing more in my actual > setup). so the missing SN numbers in the resulting TOC in this example > are not a bug :). > > t

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

Hi Tadziu & Deri, At 2024-10-04T17:31:35+0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > [Deri wrote:] > > the most serious one is misalignment of page number column > > for entries which are long but seemingly fail to line > > break early enough. there are also instances where the line > > break just occurs too l

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

> the most serious one is misalignment of page number column > for entries which are long but seemingly fail to line > break early enough. there are also instances where the line > break just occurs too late w/o causing page number column > misalignment (this seems to be the case when no further

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

correction regarding the "long entries that do line break do not honour indent": this probably is technically not a bug since in the original context the entries do have the form SN[tab]entry the SN is missing in the example so the entries in fact all start with \t and when line break occurs t

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On 03.10.24 23:21, G. Branden Robinson wrote: At 2024-10-03T23:06:18+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: table of content when using ms macros (wide entries failing to line break and "pushing" the page number out of line to the right instead). I cannot say, however, whether this is a 1.23-related

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On Thursday, 3 October 2024 22:18:23 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2024-10-03T20:58:34+0100, Deri wrote: > > An example is the utp document which a lot of people on this list put > > together. Neither the original 1.0, producing postscript, nor 1.1, > > producing a pdf, now build properly, fr

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

At 2024-10-03T23:06:18+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > table of content when using ms macros (wide entries failing to line > break and "pushing" the page number out of line to the right instead). > I cannot say, however, whether this is a 1.23-related issue or whether > it just has escaped my att

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

At 2024-10-03T20:58:34+0100, Deri wrote: > I agree stagnation is not good, but it is undesirable if changes break > existing documents. Yes, if something breaks/alters the rendering of an existing document, it is best if that alteration is offset by a more valuable benefit. Admittedly, I see pro

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On 03.10.24 21:58, Deri wrote: On Wednesday, 2 October 2024 19:29:26 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote: To accept such a restriction is to surrender groff to stagnation. While I am aware of at least one person for whom that situation is a preference, I claim that the same can be achieved by neve

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On Wednesday, 2 October 2024 19:29:26 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > To accept such a restriction is to surrender groff to stagnation. While > I am aware of at least one person for whom that situation is a > preference, I claim that the same can be achieved by never upgrading > groff from the ve

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

On 02.10.24 20:29, G. Branden Robinson wrote: [follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list] Hi Joerg, hi branden, thanks for bothering to reply so thoroughly. I have interspersed a few comments below but up front just this: I principally regard changes breaking backward compatibility i

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

At 2024-10-02T13:29:28-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > [follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list] One point I forgot to mention... > At 2024-10-02T18:12:06+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > > I was not aware of this change (not following groff development > > closely) and it took me quit

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

> . I must have been blissfully unaware of this discussion. However, I want to caution against the idea that "\c" continues an *input* line. "\c" is something that concerns the *output*. I.e., foo\c bar is *two* input lines

Re: removing the .IX macro from the ms package in 1.23 breaks old documents

[follow-ups set to groff@gnu, a discussion list] Hi Joerg, At 2024-10-02T18:12:06+0200, joerg van den hoff wrote: > I was not aware of this change (not following groff development > closely) and it took me quite a bit of time today to find the root > course of why some newly compiled old document