On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:46:54PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Luca Furini a écrit :
> > Vincent wrote:
> > 
> >> I don't follow you: IIUC the glue-penalty-glue triplet is generated only
> >> the second time, when the first breaking doesn't give acceptable
> >> results? What do you mean by "the penalty is not taken into account"?
> > 
> > No, the sequence is always the same: since the beginning it represents
> > the hyphenation points too, but at the first call to
> > findBreakingPoints() there is a parameter saying that only
> > non-hyphenated breaks should be looked at.
> Doesn't that have an impact on performance? I know we are no longer at
> the time when TeX was created, but, still, performing hyphenation only
> when the first pass has failed should be more effective?

As far as I understand, it is necessary to do hyphenation first,
because it is not possible to modify the set of Knuth elements later
because the LMs (?) already contain references to them by index.

> > Another question: should the hyphen characters in the text be feasible
> > breaks even if hyphenation is disabled?
> I'd say yes. In French, at least, there are lots of compound words that
> it is totally acceptable to break even if hyphenation is disabled. They
> should simply be discouraged by setting a positive penalty value (the
> same as for other hyphens).
> When we hyphenate words it's as if we were adding soft hyphens at some
> places in the input text --these wouldn't be the same hyphens.

I agree with both points. And a soft hyphen inserted by the user is
equivalent to a legal linebreak created by the hyphenation process.


Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu

Reply via email to