> Okay, I'm seriously confused here, [...]
I hope that my other mail helps you to understand the problem.
> To sum up the rest of this longish mail, they point away /from/ .ig
> as a source of problems. Instead, evaluating the PO register before
> the start of the real -ms document seems to be what creates the
> mess.
Exactly. I wouldn't it call a `mess' since it allows the user to
change the intended paper format on the command line (or in a default
startup file). Try this:
groff -dpaper=a4 -P-pa4 -ms foo.ms > foo-a4.ps
groff -dpaper=a4l -P-pa4 -P-l -ms foo.ms > foo-a4-landscape.ps
Now try something similar with Sun's ms macros.
> I am still confused about how much of a "block comment" request .ig
> really is. All I know is that current groff evaluates number
> registers within .ig blocks. Did it always do it? Do other troffs
> do it? I don't know.
As explained in my other mail, this has always been so. Not the most
brilliant idea IMHO, but groff has to follow.
> Anyway, that isn't as important as I thought. What I /know/ to be
> different in CVS groff compared to older releases is that evaluating
> PO before the first .LP zeros it, causing this zero-margin effect.
Yes, this has been changed, namely by Egil:
2004-07-27 Egil Kvaleberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* tmac/s.tmac ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Don't save `PO' register.
(pg*end-col, pg*end-page): Directly use `PO' register.
I've CCed him -- I no longer know the exact reason.
Werner
_______________________________________________
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
