[bug #61428] [me] new page-length restriction too restrictive

[Dave]

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/