> Please note that the footer on page 4 (this is physical page 8) is one
> line lower than the footer on page 3 and 5.
>
> Thanks for the sample input. Turns out it was (I think) an easy bug to
> fix. Diff below, and updated ftp://tug.org/tex/texinfo.tex, among other
> places.
>
> Let m
Please note that the footer on page 4 (this is physical page 8) is one
line lower than the footer on page 3 and 5.
Thanks for the sample input. Turns out it was (I think) an easy bug to
fix. Diff below, and updated ftp://tug.org/tex/texinfo.tex, among other
places.
Let me know if still
Perhaps it is possible to change them to roman, providing an
@italicleaders command for backwards compatibility...
I changed the leaders back to regular periods. Didn't bother with an
option. We'll see if anyone notices.
karl
___
Groff maili
Well, looking at them with a PDF viewer, they look really bad IMHO.
Shrug. That's how I was looking at them. They don't look especially
bad to me.
Perhaps it is possible to change them to roman, providing an
@italicleaders command for backwards compatibility...
No, it's not worth a
> No one has mentioned it to me before now, that I can recall.
:-) Suddenly two people are disturbed by it almost at the same time.
> I have to admit the italic periods don't bother me. In fact, by
> being oriented a bit toward the right they are a bit more "leader-y"
> than normal periods.
We
> Incidentally, looking at the PDF file, I wonder what could possibly
> be the purpose of using "italic" dots as leaders in the table of
> contents?
I have exactly the same question...
It seems rms made the change nearly 13 years ago:
Sun Nov 21 22:16:21 1993 Richard Stallman (
> Incidentally, looking at the PDF file, I wonder what could possibly
> be the purpose of using "italic" dots as leaders in the table of
> contents?
I have exactly the same question...
I wasn't aware that it was. Will look into it.
karl
[About the just sent `test.texinfo'.]
> Incidentally, looking at the PDF file, I wonder what could possibly
> be the purpose of using "italic" dots as leaders in the table of
> contents?
I have exactly the same question...
Werner
___
Groff mail
> Attached is a reduced version of groff.texinfo,
> together with a PDF version of it.
Incidentally, looking at the PDF file, I wonder what could
possibly be the purpose of using "italic" dots as leaders
in the table of contents?
___
Groff mailing l
PS: A related thing is the use of `Chapter:' in the header line. I
consider this redundant; a simple number would be sufficient.
Consequently, I would like to see @thissectionname, @thissecnum,
and @thischapnum.
I added @thischapternum for use in headers/footers.
Doin
BTW, a footer string as defined with @xxxfooting jumps up and down
within the output -- this is *really* ugly, and I consider it as a
severe typographical bug (I use texinfo 4.8).
I cannot reproduce this with the current texinfo.tex
(ftp://tug.org/tex/texinfo.tex). I added your line
Hi Werner,
Please add a proper @thissection command
This means using marks, etc. Sorry, I don't plan to implement this any
time soon, if ever. Maybe Stepan or someone else would like to work on
it.
@thissection{} isn't in the Texinfo manual any more (and hasn't been for
years), because no
12 matches
Mail list logo
