Follow-up Comment #8, bug #61428 (project groff): [comment #6 comment #6:] > I'm all for minimal reproducing cases, but that one might be > _too_ minimal...! It doesn't really exercise any me(7) > features. The package gets initialized, sure...
That was sort of its point: even without using anything me-ey, the very presence of the -me package rejected (what might, arguably, be) valid input. Still, it's easy to stick in a -me paragraphing macro before the Hello and get the same results. printf '.pl 10v\n.pp\nHello.\n' | groff -me -Tascii > I _think_ that by "nominal", all Allman meant was that that > distance was as low as the running text could get; That's my reading of the intent there as well. > One can reasonably protest that if we don't have headers and > footers at all, we should be allowed to have a shorter page > length. But that is not how me(7) is designed. The `tm` and > `bm` registers are independent of header/footer usage, A valid point. The real-world situation that I simplified to the point of absurdity above was one using the .pl/.em trick from the Texinfo manual to cut off terminal output right after the last line of output in a document containing no footers. After the bug #61034 fix, this stopped working on very short documents. But a reasonable counterargument is that it _should_ stop working unless I also told -me to use no bottom margins; otherwise, I've made my terminal "page" too short to handle all the requested output. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61428> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/