[bug #61428] [me] new page-length restriction too restrictive

[G. Branden Robinson]

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #61428 (project groff):

Hi, Dave!

[comment #9 comment #9:]
> [comment #8 comment #8:]
> > [comment #6 comment #6:]
> > > I _think_ that by "nominal", all Allman meant was that that
> > > distance was as low as the running text could get; we're
> > > all familiar with pages that fail to fill due to the text
> > > ending, `ne` requests, keeps, and so on.
> > 
> > That's my reading of the intent there as well.
> 
> Actually, I think it's subtler than that.  Even on a page with text going
all the way to the bottom, the exact placement of the last line will depend on
the type size, leading, and any diagrams (or in -me's case, even super- and
subscripts further up the page) that alter the flow of lines on the page.  I
believe the "nominal" is pointing out that there is no way to guarantee that
\n(bm will exactly equal "the distance from the bottom of the page to the
bottom of the text," only that it establishes a textual low-water mark on the
page.

Agreed.  If anyone ever pesters us about this, we can add your text to the
reference manual.  :)

If only all the issues with me(7) were so easily resolved... :-O

I'm leaving this as "Need Info" because I'm still not sure exactly what to do,
apart from catalogging all of the traps me(7) sets so that a minimum page
length can be computed dynamically.  Just summing \n(tm and \(bm and adding a
vee doesn't seem to do the trick.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61428>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/