Jeremias, On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:08:36PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Thanks to Luca, lists are essentially dealt with. After an easy fix the > current test cases for lists all pass. > > What remains of the crucial parts for the Knuth approach is the border > handling for tables. I don't think I can do that until Wednesday. > Tomorrow I have appointments almost all day and I'll be off-line during > Thursday and maybe Friday. We've now collected some experience with the > Knuth approach and I'd say although the remaining problem is quite > complicated I think we can make it work. That would mean we can merge > the Knuth branch back into CVS HEAD. But I'd like to hear your opinions, > too. There's still a slight chance of hitting a dead end with tables > which makes me a bit uneasy. So I'd rather extend the deadline for > about 10 days just to be sure.
I have not had the time to probe the new code to a great extent. What I see looks good. I noticed that each line in a paragraph has the height of the first line of that paragraph. That is not correct, and may invalidate test files. I also noticed that the whole page sequence is read before pages are created. Is that going to change, as discussed some time ago? > Does anyone see any other possible issues with the branch that I may > have forgotten? I am worried about performance. Knuth elements are passed up and down the LM tree, and at each step the Position is wrapped or unwrapped. That probably occurs very many times, and together these operations could require considerable processing time. Perhaps it can be avoided. I do not see a fundamental reason why the whole stack of ancestral LMs should be contained in a Knuth element. Regards, Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
