Follow-up Comment #9, bug #57538 (project groff):
Thanks for tracking down this mewling kitten, Branden!
The original longstanding bug (as the opening comment here observes, it was
first reported to bug-groff in 2012) made me long ago excise .(b/.)b from my
own -me documents. Thus my only test cases now are the ones posted here,
which you've already verified.
But why should .ne's parameter need to be adjusted so? The
diversion-adds-an-extra-line-feed explanation only takes you so far, since
using .ne in place of the .(b/.)b pair in the original example -- which,
absent those two -me macros, does not use a diversion -- still results in a
premature page break when the seven-line block would fit on the last seven
lines of the page.
That makes this fix feel more like a workaround to the underlying problem,
which is that .ne "grabs" more space than necessary. And the thread linked in
comment #1 suggests this problem isn't limited to the -me package.
That is, while I originally reported this problem in -me's .)b macro, I'm
beginning to think the underlying problem is with .ne itself.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57538>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
