On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 11:55:26 -0400 Peter Schaffter <pe...@schaffter.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018, Holger Herrlich wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:24:39 -0400 > > > Peter Schaffter <pe...@schaffter.ca> wrote: > > > > > set and change every applicable type parameter: family, font, > > > size, colour, leading, spacing, indent, quad, fill, and vertical > > > placement. > > > > > > In other words, mom expands creative options rather than > > > limiting them. That's the whole point. > > > > Font height \H'' missing. > > I'm not sure what you're saying. That \H'' functionality is > missing from the mom macros? It's there. Raising or lowering > font height (Y-axis) has the corresponding effect of condensing or > expanding (X-axis). Mom exploits the latter and uses \H'' to create > pseudo-condensed and pseudo-expanded font effects, invoked inline > with \*[CONDENSE] or \*[EXPAND]. > > Nothing prevents using \H'' itself if, conceptually, you prefer to > think of the type deformation as stretching/squashing vertically > rather than horizontally. > > I may be misunderstanind what you're saying, though. I don't know mom. You just weren't name it (\H'') but said "everything", while talking about facts. Well generally, that one can use a groff feature, does not mean, it's the macro package's feature. Think about embedded PostScript. And being "not prevented" from something, still needs to watch out for possible side effects. It's not a so called supported entry. But I don't say mom is evil. And it cannot be everybody's darling. I just say, one may longing for his own macro set.
