Re: [Groff] Werner's Margin Notes

[Peter Schaffter]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2005, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> 
> > My original post was more of a "how difficult would these be to
> > implement as groff requests?" query than a request for assistance.
> > I understand .sp, and have for some time included a "CR/no-LF" macro
> > (kludge) in the mom macros.  So it was actually a wish-list thought.
> > I gather the answer is "too difficult to warrant doing it."
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I suspect it would be rather easy to implement
> these features as formatter requests.  However, I think we
> shouldn't be doing this for two simple reasons:
> 
>   * As long as they're easily implementable as macros, without
>     a significant runtime penalty, there's no need to, and we
>     should keep the formatter as simple and small as possible.
> 
>   * It's not clear how the carriage-return macro should behave
>     in case the line parts before and after the call have
>     different extra-line-space requirements[*].  With several
>     macro implementations to choose from, at least we can pick
>     the one that best serves a particular need.

I understand both, and agree.  Especially as I seem to be the only
person to have considered the possible need for a carriage return
implemented at the formatter level.  There are a couple of routines
in the mom macro set that would have caused me a lot less grief if
it existed, but I've kludged my way around its absence, and things
work as they should, so, as you point out, it isn't really an
issue.

I rather suspect that my even seeing the possible need for such
a thing comes from the fact that it existed in all the old-style
dedicated phototypesetting systems (CompuGraphic, Quadritek,
Linotronic, AM, etc) on which I learned and practised my trade.  My
thinking has been conditioned by that, I suspect.

-- 
Peter Schaffter
  Author of _The Schumann Proof_ (RendezVous Press, Canada)
  http://www.golden.net/~ptpi/theschumannproof.html