On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:19:17 +0100
Tadziu Hoffmann wrote:
> Where are the actual footnotes?
I hadn't noticed! :-/ I was so excited about the row height that I
stopped looking at the bottom of the page.
> You can transparently embed the footnote requests in the
> table-cell diversion, so that
Shame on you, Jeff. You hijacked Anton's thread on upper case handling,
to ask this completely unrelated question. Now, when I find a few
moments to respond, I have to remember which thread you hijacked,
because ThunderBird has buried your original query in a collapsed
thread, where I can't readi
> 3. In your source file, add ".so s.tmac" at the beginning
> (to make groff use your version of the ms macros), and
> do not use "-ms" when calling groff.
Alternatively, add `-M.' to command line arguments of groff.
Werner
> So the content is only processed once, not twice, and the
> strategy suggested by me will not work.
> Please try the following: [snip]
Instead of the above, there is also an alternative solution:
You can transparently embed the footnote requests in the
table-cell diversion, so that they are onl
> http://www.schemamania.org/tbl/eg/
> I thought you might like to see a working example this time. :-)
Uh... sorry to have been misleading you all this time.
Where are the actual footnotes?
I had misinterpreted the symptoms, and believed that the table
cell is rendered twice: once to determin
Użytkownik (Ted Harding) napisał:
What is missing, which would allow your need to be filled
equally simply, is an attribute (say "hatched") which would
work similarly:
box wid 2 ht 1 with .sw at (1,0) hatched 45 0.05
which would fill the blox with a hatching of slanted lines
at a 45-degree a
On 01-Dec-11 11:59:31, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
> Użytkownik (Ted Harding) napisaÅ:
>> What is missing, which would allow your need to be filled
>> equally simply, is an attribute (say "hatched") which would
>> work similarly:
>>
>>box wid 2 ht 1 with .sw at (1,0) hatched 45 0.05
>>
>> w
Sorry for answering with such a delay.
>> Is there any reason this should behave so differently (and
>> seemingly illogically) without that extra blank line in the source?
>
> I also think it's a bug (but then one that's been around a long
> time, at least since version 2.14 of tmac.e from 1981)
