Giving up on emulating SYNOPSIS vspace.

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

Hi,

As you may know from the commits, I've been trying to normal-form 
groff's SYNOPSIS behaviour regarding vertical spacing.  I have failed. 
Anything but using "normal" SYNOPSIS macros produces catshit.

If you really want to cover groff's behaviour, send me patches and I'll 
find behaviour that breaks them.  Instead I propose making consistent 
rules out of observed, normative behaviour, then going from there.

*Please give feedback on this*: the SYNOPSIS is very important.  I will 
hold off on implementing my suggestion until I have some oks.  It's a 
trivial implementation and will result in some nice cleanup, and is 
easily documented.

Note that I'll only discuss 'function' manual sections in this email, 
i.e., Fn/Ft/etc., not Nm/Op/etc, which is much easier.  You'll see what 
I mean.  Nm/Op is more straightforward (let's leave this discussion for 
later).

First, I propose that SYNOPSIS sections be grouped into the following 
macro sets,

  .In
  .Ft/Fn ("combo", i.e., one after the other)
  .Ft/Fo (same)
  .Fo
  .Fn
  .Fd

with rules as follows.  Any macro/combo of these sets will be preceded 
and proceeded by a newline.  It doesn't matter what the hell comes 
before or after or whether these are line macros or not.

Next, non-like pair-wise sets will be separated by a single vertical space.

Lastly, like pairwise Ft/Fn, Ft/Fo, Fo, and Fn are separated by a single 
vertical space.

That's it.  Simple, no?

Please let me know ASAP, as I want to tag version 1.10.1 and move on 
with PostScript and Ingo's block-breaking patches.

Thanks,

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv