Follow-up Comment #4, bug #61437 (project groff):
[comment #3 comment #3:]
> My patch is not invalid, but the invalidation is.
You don't say how.
> The current documentation claims for troff:
>
> 1) \d means \v'0.5v'
>
> 2) \r means \v'-1v'
>
> How does the example proof that?
Did you interpret it, or convert it to PostScript and inspect the result?
> a) To make things clear, explanation should have been added
> to the output of each line
I'm working on a rewrite of groff_out(5), but even in its existing state, it
can be followed. If you want to argue over the magnitude of small movements
in *roff, at some point you're going to have to familiarize yourself with the
device-independent ("intermediate") output format.
> b) A third case is missing, showing the choice the patch makes.
I didn't see any reason to do so. Vertical motions are generally not made in
ems in typography, as I understand it.
If you won't look at the output, look at the source.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/src/roff/troff/input.cpp#n2029
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/src/roff/troff/input.cpp#n2159
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61437>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
