To me
.char \[-+] \f[S]\v'.05v'\z+\v'-.3v'\-\v'.3v'\v'-.05v'\f[]
looks better vertically aligned, but it's just a bikeshed.
Many thanks for all replies.
Anton
Hi Werner,
> > Why is it useful to have nroff ignore a duff -T value and fall back
> > as if it was unspecified?
>
> I can't remember...
It's changed a bit over the years, but 2000's
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/src/roff/nroff/nroff.sh?id=e092fba45175220aeee4912da9e2b96228a798b
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 04:32:21PM +0100, Denis M. Wilson wrote:
> Try something like
>
> .char \[-+] \f[S]\v'.1v'\z+\v'-.25v'\-\v'.25v'\v'-.1v'\f[]
>
> The spacing needs more fine-tuning, I don't have time at the moment.
This seems to work ...
.char \[-+] \f[S]\z+\v'-.35v'\-\v'.35v'\f[
On 30-Jul-2014 09:23:54 Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> To me
> .char \[-+] \f[S]\v'.05v'\z+\v'-.3v'\-\v'.3v'\v'-.05v'\f[]
>
> looks better vertically aligned, but it's just a bikeshed.
>
> Many thanks for all replies.
> Anton
Well, now that I can finally get round to it, Denis Wilson:
.char \[-+]
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:40:55PM +0100, Ted Harding wrote:
> :
> The main difference, which I strongly recommend, is to use
> 'm' rather than 'v' as the scale for the vertical motion.
> The reason is that 1v is one line-space, which can be set
> independently of the current point-size, whil
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:40:55 +0100 (BST)
(Ted Harding) wrote:
> On 30-Jul-2014 09:23:54 Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> > To me
> > .char \[-+] \f[S]\v'.05v'\z+\v'-.3v'\-\v'.3v'\v'-.05v'\f[]
> >
> > looks better vertically aligned, but it's just a bikeshed.
> >
> > Many thanks for all replies.
> >
