Branden, Em qua., 15 de mai. de 2024 às 15:47, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > Hi Bento, > > It seems that this behavior is for compatibility with DWB mm.
Oh, Documenter's Workbench... I'm reading this Apple manual I found in this very mailing list: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/apple/mac/a_ux/aux_2.0/030-0761-A_AUX_Text_Processing_Tools_1990.pdf its last chapter mentions some tools like spell, style and diction, I guess they come from this package? Unless I find them, I'll have to find deroff or unroff to check my grammar using some other tool! > But I wouldn't worry about it. Whoever is evaluating your paper will > likely never notice that you failed to set the indentation to 1.27cm. > > I explain why in the attached mm document, with renderings from DWB 3.3 > mm and groff mm. This helps a lot! Groff also warns about "cannot break line" when setting 1.27c directly in your document, but when dividing by 1n and using the default, it works perfectly! I was about to try me, but I can now continue with mm :) > > This is not really a question, let's say I'm just chatting and > > speaking my thoughts out loud! I'm open to suggestions and directions > > hehe. > > My advice is to not bother setting the register `Pi`, for the reason > explained in the document. > > But maybe that was hard in this case (and if so, likely others in mm--it > uses _lots_ of registers), since Pi is just a "dumb register"; its value > is converted to basic units as soon as it is assigned to, and the > formatter has no way of knowing what scaling unit was applied by the > user at the time it was assigned. > > The memorandum macros have a strong bias in favor of ens for all > horizontal measurements and vees for all vertical ones. Perhaps > amusingly, I recently changed GNU mm to be even more rigid about this. hmmm I'll keep all that in mind then! Best regards, Bento
