[bug #43306] -me macro .(c block misaligned

[Dave]

URL:
  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?43306>

                 Summary: -me macro .(c block misaligned
                 Project: GNU troff
            Submitted by: barx
            Submitted on: Sat 27 Sep 2014 02:35:22 AM CDT
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
         Planned Release: None

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

This documents a bug that Tadziu discovered in the -me macro set's .(c and .)c
macros.  This test case illustrates the bug:

.mso me.tmac
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
This is regular text.
.(c
This is a centered block.
This is a centered block.
This is a centered block.
This is a centered block.
This is a centered block.
This is a centered block.
.)c
This is more regular text.
This is more regular text.
This is more regular text.
This is more regular text.
This is more regular text.

His description of the bug and its cause, taken from two posts to the groff
email list:

"If the block contains more text than can fit on one line, the text is
line-wrapped with the current line width, but output indented, so it sticks
out at the right. It would look much nicer if the line width of the block were
reduced by twice the indent.

The 'me' macros ... change the line width to 6.0 inches, but the indent for
blocks is computed in environment 1 which retains the default line width of
6.5 inches. Thus, blocks get formatted to a width of 6 inches but are printed
with an indent of .25 inches and thus stick out at the right. (I had
originally thought that the indent was intentional (and we should therefore
reduce the line width), but this appears not to be the case.)"

(Original posts:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2011-11/msg00004.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2012-01/msg00063.html
)




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?43306>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/