[bug #63176] [me] After column-count changes, -me might place running text on page below footnote

[G. Branden Robinson]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #63176 (project groff):

[comment #2 comment #2:]
> Vertical motion _does_ produce text baselines.

This statement is wrong.  `sp` does not advance the text high-water mark.  A
break with `br` _does_, even you don't subsequently format any text on the new
line.

I can't rationalize that.

But it's beside the point for the time being.

As we might have guessed, the problem seems to be that spacing to the bottom
of the page (by beginning a new column) springs a footnote-related trap.


$ cat EXPERIMENTS/bad-footnote.me 
.fo ''%''
.tm A: .h=\n(.h
Some text in one column.
.tm B: .h=\n(.h
.(f
A footnote.
.)f
.tm C: .h=\n(.h
.2c
First column.
.tm D: .h=\n(.h
.bc
.tm E: .h=\n(.h
Second column.
.tm F: .h=\n(.h
.1c
.tm G: .h=\n(.h
Back to one-column text.
.tm H: .h=\n(.h
$ ./build/test-groff -Tutf8 -b -ww -me -r@2 EXPERIMENTS/bad-footnote.me | cat
-s
A: .h=0
>> @h %=1 ?a=0 ?b=0 ?w=0
B: .h=0
C: .h=0
D: .h=320
>> @f %=1 nl=2240 ?a=0 ?b=0 ?f=1
e.tmac:EXPERIMENTS/bad-footnote.me:12: writing 2-column footnote in 1-column
layout
E: .h=2320
F: .h=2320
G: .h=2320
H: .h=2320
>> @z, .z= ?a=0
<< @z
>> @f %=1 nl=2400 ?a=0 ?b=0 ?f=0

Some text in one column.
First column.                   Second column.

____________________
   A footnote.
Back to one‐column text.

                              1



Still investigating.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63176>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/