James --
On Sun, May 04, 2014, James K. Lowden wrote:
> Are you really concerned about minimal resource requirements, or
> speed of processing?
You're quite right, the issue is speed.
> Doug's description retains a one-pass algorithm, which is key for
> speed. A parallel approach (forking) will
On Sat, 3 May 2014 14:23:10 -0400
Peter Schaffter wrote:
> > A straightforward way to pull this off would be to actualize the
> > notional copies of groff by forking. There would be one copy going
> > forward from each line break. That would evaluate the cost of
> > breaking at each word (or hyph
> I don't see why any forking should be needed.
I am all ears. I'd love to know a better way to cope with events
that are triggered by line breaks, when several different potential
line breaks are in play, as were discussed in my posting to which
Peter's referred. Forking is certainly unappealing
