Follow-up Comment #23, bug #58736 (project groff):
[comment #22 comment #22:]
> I am soliciting opinions as to what `1c` should mean when
> footnotes are pending
I think there's a distinction to be made between cases where a footnote is
pending that comes from within the .2c block vs that precedes the .2c block.
I agree the former case introduces some ambiguity, but the latter is what
prompted this bug report, and getting that to work might be a worthy starting
point unless the problems are intractably intertwined.
Typically multi-column output will be in effect for the whole page, so it's
not an issue. The original example in this bug report uses two columns
temporarily for a special effect, but (a) the overall page is one column, and
(b) the footnote is initialized outside the two-column region. (In a layout
like this, it's really up to the user to ensure that the .2c block doesn't
span a page break: if one occurs, -me will already make the output probably
not what he wants.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58736>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
