On 01/26/2017 08:20 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 26/01/2017 à 10:54, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
>> I am not sure. The cause for 3 is that the code fails to account
>> precisely for the available space on next row (because when it evaluates
>> whether breaking would be a good idea. I jus
Le 26/01/2017 à 10:54, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
I am not sure. The cause for 3 is that the code fails to account
precisely for the available space on next row (because when it evaluates
whether breaking would be a good idea. I just have to find the time to
write a patch.
I pushed a fix at
Le 26/01/2017 à 00:48, Guillaume Munch a écrit :
They are mostly not desired.
* 3 is clearly a bug
* 2 and 5 should be avoidable, but it requires to have some knowledge
that breaking before the inset is more desirable than in the middle of
the text. It might be doable. I have code somewhere to al
Le 21/01/2017 à 20:22, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Le 21/01/2017 à 19:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
The attached sequence of screenshots show the phases of row-breaking
that happens as I keep typing " abc" in the footnote. The word "OLS"
seems to jump around a lot and I find that (mildly) ann
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 08:22:52PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 21/01/2017 à 19:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
> > The attached sequence of screenshots show the phases of row-breaking
> > that happens as I keep typing " abc" in the footnote. The word "OLS"
> > seems to jump around a lot a
Le 21/01/2017 à 19:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
The attached sequence of screenshots show the phases of row-breaking
that happens as I keep typing " abc" in the footnote. The word "OLS"
seems to jump around a lot and I find that (mildly) annoying.
Are all six phases of the row breaking desired?
