On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 06:08:37PM +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > I am not really sure which is better. There is more in chapter 17
> > and one argument is that it is better to start a new page for
> > chapter 17's contents listing.
>
> Both are OK to me. However, what I have a problem with are cases
> where too much empty vertical space remains, which could be easily
> filled with a chapter entry and four lower-level entries, say.
I've made a change changing this dimension down to 30pt. I know you
said you said you still had too much space even at 20pt, but I'd
have to see it to believe it. (There might not be space for as many
entries as you think, when all is considered).
Here's the file I used for testing, in case it is useful for testing
contents formatting more quickly without processing the entire file:
$ cat test-notation.texi
\input texinfo
@tex
\gdef\tocreadfilename{notation.toc}
@end tex
@afourpaper
@shortcontents
@contents
@bye
(Using a different filename prevents notation.toc being overwritten
accidentally.)
> >> If I understand you correctly the bad break is the result of
> >> cumulative effects. Maybe this can be avoided by not cumulating
> >> them? Otherwise I can imagine to make the `plus 60pt` part of the
> >> skip used in `\raggedbottom` a user-defined variable.
> >
> > The interaction between the penalty and the vertical skip is how our
> > implementation of ragged bottom works.
>
> I think I was unclear: I see that the innermost command
> `\entryinternal` is used by `\tocentry`, which in turn is used by
> `\dochapentry`, which is used by `\numchapentry` – and every level
> adds more stuff. This I mean with 'cumulative'.
Yes, this is a confusing, especially when each level adds stuff that
isn't relevant for the use case. Currently the code uses \entryinternal
directly.
