[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug #61428] [me] new page-length restriction too restrictive
From: |
Dave |
Subject: |
[bug #61428] [me] new page-length restriction too restrictive |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Dec 2021 00:04:25 -0500 (EST) |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/45.0 |
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #61428 (project groff):
[comment #6 comment #6:]
> I'm all for minimal reproducing cases, but that one might be
> _too_ minimal...! It doesn't really exercise any me(7)
> features. The package gets initialized, sure...
That was sort of its point: even without using anything me-ey, the very
presence of the -me package rejected (what might, arguably, be) valid input.
Still, it's easy to stick in a -me paragraphing macro before the Hello and get
the same results.
printf '.pl 10v\n.pp\nHello.\n' | groff -me -Tascii
> I _think_ that by "nominal", all Allman meant was that that
> distance was as low as the running text could get;
That's my reading of the intent there as well.
> One can reasonably protest that if we don't have headers and
> footers at all, we should be allowed to have a shorter page
> length. But that is not how me(7) is designed. The `tm` and
> `bm` registers are independent of header/footer usage,
A valid point. The real-world situation that I simplified to the point of
absurdity above was one using the .pl/.em trick from the Texinfo manual to cut
off terminal output right after the last line of output in a document
containing no footers. After the bug #61034 fix, this stopped working on very
short documents. But a reasonable counterargument is that it _should_ stop
working unless I also told -me to use no bottom margins; otherwise, I've made
my terminal "page" too short to handle all the requested output.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61428>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/