Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.net [213.165.64.100]) by h1439878.stratoserver.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with SMTP id p8LIduGF020427 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:39:57 +0200 Received: (qmail 24502 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2011 18:39:51 -0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to rainer.schoepf@gmx.net Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0000 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (EHLO relay.uni-heidelberg.de) [129.206.100.212] by mx0.gmx.net (mx107) with SMTP; 21 Sep 2011 20:39:50 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.94]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p8LIbMCO032064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:37:22 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8LGSBxf023745; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:37:21 +0200 Received: by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 16.0) with spool id 1625941 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:37:21 +0200 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8LIbLnH022004 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:37:21 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8LIawqS003368 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:37:02 +0200 Received: from mittelbach-online.de (p3EE3EB4E.dip.t-dialin.net [62.227.235.78]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MSCWE-1QdJw00DDG-00SpPb; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:36:58 +0200 Received: by mittelbach-online.de (Postfix, from userid 783) id 104A81720318; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:36:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on Marlowe X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.5 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [192.168.123.104]) (Authenticated sender: frank) by mittelbach-online.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABA93172030A for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:36:48 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4E79D279.2050901@morningstar2.co.uk> <4E79E2B7.6080906@residenset.net> <4E79E8C1.8060107@morningstar2.co.uk> <4E79F0F7.7060400@residenset.net> <4E7A1579.1000009@morningstar2.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110921-1, 21.09.2011), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:WDmaqYZC0jjkikH5UxihbOYxdTQhrODaSBHAp3sn/Ms ozTdIdaPdd+4eNjDDoZfzcwNrNGA0PzHF3iDROqygAdu9rKgUu m0uzb51B9sjWcs8MRAhxWRwsjNvtnVFznaIQmKdKJXHh0AWNBL qVAsyuujtCzjZi0LpIfFjMCnDcY4YsEWZ/oHCPQFLVXGTBMbiq kh8Ke0dMz5tNRAmssLpevhfLUrdJpj3LNdJHoYVQ4w07S/jz1Z rU+ijmi9EqSc7r6V6xUAwFIveCuscTUp4u0VObwwtzgwiXzT/C NW+kjhqssy+MyuRN35DyA5arDvMnhzfg5227lqRwUl6BaYw1fb j4xuqVn5ETZd7ioQH9iUD5kOn6YFstB1mHhB0BOvX Message-ID: <4E7A2EBF.3070009@latex-project.org> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:36:47 +0200 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project From: Frank Mittelbach Subject: Re: \interlinepenalties To: LATEX-L@listserv.uni-heidelberg.de In-Reply-To: <4E7A1579.1000009@morningstar2.co.uk> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (eXpurgate); Detail=5D7Q89H36p6sJLDpZh614LdjtwLz6vwIf4s51M/iFdVNQ0FX02yT8OmZq9PtQGJDP5dzx 7T3yEe1JAZ8S8IKXRTjHHTIie1qDKvqGbQKqLPSI/VaaOsLLWIo+4fOJyUwsw5C32l+nb1wMlMj9 bOkaM1O8Uhkx2r8rhV54ZPu0oUQ5MX0qNlGdQ82NPNPahDyPco0YqArh/k=V1; X-Resent-By: Forwarder X-Resent-For: rainer.schoepf@gmx.net X-Resent-To: rainer@rainer-schoepf.de Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 6893 Am 21.09.2011 18:48, schrieb Joseph Wright: > On 21/09/2011 17:34, Bruno Le Floch wrote: >> Context uses it in \keeplinestogether, but I don't see why they >> couldn't have used \clubpenalties instead. I don't understand the >> difference between \interlinepenalties and \clubpenalties as described >> in etex_man: >> >> - the ith interline penalty value is used after line i of the paragraph; >> - the ith club penalty value is used after line i of a partial paragraph; > > My reading of this was that the variation comes down to whether there is > any display math about, but in such a case I'm doubtful you'd want to > 'keep together' in any case. As you say, in most realistic circumstances > \clubpenalties seems to be quite usable, as you have to start from line > 1 with \interlinepenalties too. I beg to disagree. The two arrays serve different purposes and in fact \insertpenalties is the one that is more useful (and was the original reason for providing the this additional functionality (the others are more an afterthought to make thing orthogonal). Main use case: Ensure that after a section x lines are kept together with the section for this use have to use \insertpenalties as you do *not* want to restart counting after a displayed equation, but you just want x-lines once. (in that case you need a mechanism to restore the default status after the first paragraph, as LaTeX today does (or rather attempts as it not always works in TeX) with \clubpenalty for ensuring 2 lines after a heading) Minor use case: At the beginning of a paragraph (or after a displayed equation as that is visually simiar) you want at least 2 lines but preferably 3) then something like \clubpenalties = 2 10000 8000 That would be a setting you could use for a whole range of paragraphs or even for a whole document. you can think of others also in combination with \insertpenalties frank