[bug #62593] clarify description of end-of-sentence detection

[Dave]

Follow-up Comment #17, bug #62593 (project groff):

[comment #16 comment #16:]
> Whether a motion command gets sent to device-independent output
> matters for things like the output comparison operator.

That's a good point that I hadn't considered.

> I don't think I understand your point here.  Can you rephrase?

The point I was _trying_ to make with that: Space is only ever discarded if it
becomes a line break point.  Nonbreaking space by definition can never be a
break point.  So saying "horizontal motion cannot be [discarded]" is only
meaningful if it _can_ in fact be a break point; thus, making such an
observation might be read to imply that it can be.

But that was a reply to a bug comment; the actual wording added to the manual
makes this clear, saying the space represented by \~ "is discarded from the
end of an output line if a break is forced."  (It's less clear why someone
would specify a nonbreaking space and then force a break right after it, but
that's neither here nor there.)

> Within the domain of *roff operation, however, there is a
> tangible, measurable difference between spaces and horizontal
> motions, as I tried to illustrate above.

Yes, I think I'm following now, thank you for clarifying.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62593>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/