Re: [Groff] Correct protocol for making changes

[Clarke Echols]

Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:

>         .ds eL \|.\|.\|.\&
>         sentence goes on\*(eL
>
> where the first \| provides that extra spacing between the last word and
> the first dot.  Yet, the spacing is smaller than a full space which is a
> little unseemly.
>
> I'm not sure from Werner's explanation whether he assumes the usage with
> the space between the word and ellipsis:
>
>         .ds eL .\|.\|.\&
>         sentence goes on \*(eL

I have used this approach for years.  It has by far the best
appearance.  If I omit a few words (less than a sentence), I use:

     starting words .\|.\|. ending words.

Dropped words at start of a quote:

     ".\|.\|.\|quoted words."

Dropped words at end of quote:

     "quoted words\|.\|.\|."

I'm wondering, though, if it might make more sense to use:

     .ds eL \&.\|.\|.\&

so you don't get a narrow space between the opening double
quote and the first dot in the ellipsis when dropping words at the
start of a quote.  You then would use:

     "\*(eL\|quoted words"

(I always hand coded the ellipsis so I skipped the \& part.
Never used a .ds approach.)

I suppose that one concern I have is an excess of defined strings
leads to mental overload trying to remember what strings have been
defined.  In the interests of productivity, I try to keep it as
simple as practicable, but not simpler.  For example, compare:

     .ds eL \&.\|.\|.\&
or
     .ds eL \|.\|.\|.\&

and

     text\*(eL
versus
     text\|.\|.\|.

Whether the .ds is worth the trouble depends on how many times you
use the ellipsis in a file versus the need to remember another
string definition.  By hand coding, I have absolute control over
the result and can see what will happen by looking at the inline
sequence.  I also don't have to think about or remember the leading
\| or \& in the string definition.

Clarke