[bug #50770] .PSPIC macro at bottom of page causes unwarranted page break

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #19, bug #50770 (group groff):

[comment #17 comment #17:]
> However, you might not be wrong in a practical sense.
> 
> 5.28.1.3 Diversion Traps
> ........................
> 
> A diversion is not formatted in the context of a page, so it lacks page
> location traps;

Right, and combined with a clause from the .ne description in the
manual--"'ne' tests the distance to the next page location trap"--I don't see
any practical way an .ne inside a diversion can have any effect (though I have
not tried to test the limits of this), and it's not even clear what such an
effect might be, since a page break within a diversion is also meaningless.

> It is possible that it's not a good idea to use `PSPIC` inside a
> diversion for other reasons,

The PSPIC documentation explicitly countenances such usage: groff_tmac(5)
says, "To use PSPIC within a diversion, we recommend extending it with the
following code."

I have successfully used PSPIC within a diversion (in order to use register dn
afterwards to find the vertical size of the image) even without the
recommended code amendment.  That's not to argue that it's a "good idea,"
necessarily, just that in some circumstances it works (and as a side benefit,
sidesteps the bug at issue in this ticket).

> It does seem to me that I should be able to draw a horizontal rule 1u
> (or even 0u?) below a `PSPIC`-included image without having to do a
> reverse vertical motion first.  I haven't played with it much, so if
> that's not the status quo, that feels like a bug to me.

I have also not tested this, but the .ne under discussion here shouldn't
affect this, as .ne only decides whether to insert a page break.  If there's a
problem with vertical space below the PSPIC image, that's a separate issue.

> Time to start abandoning goals for groff 1.24. :(

I disagree with the ":(" here.  I think the number of 1.24 goals, and the
complexity of some of them, was wildly ambitious -- which is a good thing. 
But it's fine to ultimately let reality check some of that ambition.  And
anyway, version 1.24 is merely one stop on the groff journey.

I'd argue that having a consistent release schedule is better than any
particular set of changes making it into any particular release.  1.23, if
anything, did a little too much: its NEWS section dwarfs that of almost any
previous release.  1.24's NEWS section is already starting to rival it in
length.  Even if code froze today, it would be a very respectable leap
forward.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?50770>

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature