Unusual Paragraph Indent
Chris Murphy
first line in the paragraph is flush with the left margin but the
subsequent lines are slightly indented. Apart from the first line,
both sides are justified. Here is an example:
The first line of the paragraph is longer
than the second and the third and indeed
all the subsequent ones. This continues
up to the end of the paragraph where the
whole process starts again.
The only way I though of doing this is to define the following
environment:
\newenvironment{reference}%
{\begin{list}{}{%
\setlength{\leftmargin}{0.5cm}%
\setlength{\listparindent}{0cm}%
\setlength{\itemindent}{0cm}%
\setlength{\labelwidth}{0.5 cm}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0cm}%
\setlength{\parsep}{0cm}%
\setlength{\labelsep}{0cm}}}
{\end{list}}
This seems clumsy as I have to do the following:
\begin{reference}
\item [First] word of first paragraph.
\item [Second] paragraph.
\item [Last] paragraph.
\end{reference}
Also, If an item starts with a very short word, it will leave a gap
between it and the rest of the sentence.
I think that using a list is the wrong way to do this. Anybody got
any better ideas?
--Chris
--
| Earth Observation and Orbital Dynamics Group, |
| Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Aston, |
| Birmingham, B4 7ET, U.K. TEL : 0044 121 359 3611 ext 4552 |
| MAIL: murp...@aston.ac.uk FAX : 0044 121 333 3389 |
Scott D. Anderson
> I'm trying to get an unusual paragraph indentation as follows. The
> first line in the paragraph is flush with the left margin but the
> subsequent lines are slightly indented. Apart from the first line,
> both sides are justified. Here is an example:
>
>
> The first line of the paragraph is longer
> than the second and the third and indeed
> all the subsequent ones. This continues
> up to the end of the paragraph where the
> whole process starts again.
>
[His method omitted]
>
> This seems clumsy as I have to do the following:
>
> \begin{reference}
> \item [First] word of first paragraph.
> \item [Second] paragraph.
> \item [Last] paragraph.
> \end{reference}
>
> Also, If an item starts with a very short word, it will leave a gap
> between it and the rest of the sentence.
>
> I think that using a list is the wrong way to do this. Anybody got
> any better ideas?
>
> --Chris
> --
> | Earth Observation and Orbital Dynamics Group, |
> | Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Aston, |
> | Birmingham, B4 7ET, U.K. TEL : 0044 121 359 3611 ext 4552 |
> | MAIL: murp...@aston.ac.uk FAX : 0044 121 333 3389 |
No, a list is the right way to do it, but not by using items, but just
modifying the formatting of the paragraphs. Try the following. It works
for me.
\newenvironment{outdent}%
{\begin{list}{}%
{\listparindent=-1.5em\itemindent=\listparindent\leftmargin=1.5em}%
\item[]}%
{\end{list}}
Use it as follows:
\begin{outdent}
first paragraph first paragraph first paragraph first paragraph first
paragraph first paragraph first paragraph first paragraph first paragraph
first paragraph
second paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second
paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second
paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second
paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second paragraph second
paragraph
third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third
paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph
third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third
paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph third paragraph
\end{outdent}
Scott D. Anderson
ande...@cs.umass.edu
A. E. Siegman
(Chris Murphy) writes:
>
> > I'm trying to get an unusual paragraph indentation as follows. The
> > first line in the paragraph is flush with the left margin but the
> > subsequent lines are slightly indented. Apart from the first line,
> > both sides are justified. Here is an example:
> >
> >
> > The first line of the paragraph is longer
> > than the second and the third and indeed
> > all the subsequent ones. This continues
> > up to the end of the paragraph where the
> > whole process starts again.
Am I missing the point here, or is this a case of LaTeX once again driving
out TeX? Isn't \hangindent, and its relatives, intended to accomplish
exactly this?
Robin Fairbairns
A. E. Siegman <sie...@ee.stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <MURPHYCM.95...@satan.aston.ac.uk> murp...@aston.ac.uk
>(Chris Murphy) writes:
>> > I'm trying to get an unusual paragraph indentation as follows. The
>> > first line in the paragraph is flush with the left margin but the
>> > subsequent lines are slightly indented. Apart from the first line,
>> > both sides are justified. Here is an example:
>> >
>> > The first line of the paragraph is longer
>> > than the second and the third and indeed
>
>Am I missing the point here, or is this a case of LaTeX once again driving
>out TeX? Isn't \hangindent, and its relatives, intended to accomplish
>exactly this?
Not so much driving it out, as using it in a way that's not
immediately obvious to the common user.
What LaTeX attempts to do is to provide a `structural view' of the
document. It so happens that in Lamport's view there's not a
structure that corresponds to \hangindent (in any direct way: any
usable answers to this question will use LaTeX's list structures --
this may show what Lamport believes hanging indentation is about).
This forum offers a means for us all to observe just where Lamport's
views have shortcomings...
--
Robin (Campaign for Real Radio 3) Fairbairns r...@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge CB2 3QG, UK
<a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rf/robin.html">Private page</a>
Kazimir Kylheku
Scott D. Anderson <ande...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
>In article <MURPHYCM.95...@satan.aston.ac.uk> murp...@aston.ac.uk (Chris Murphy) writes:
>
>> I'm trying to get an unusual paragraph indentation as follows. The
>> first line in the paragraph is flush with the left margin but the
>> subsequent lines are slightly indented. Apart from the first line,
>> both sides are justified. Here is an example:
>>
>>
>> The first line of the paragraph is longer
>> than the second and the third and indeed
>> up to the end of the paragraph where the
>> whole process starts again.
>>
>>
>> \begin{reference}
>> \item [First] word of first paragraph.
>> \item [Second] paragraph.
>> \item [Last] paragraph.
>> \end{reference}
>>
>> Also, If an item starts with a very short word, it will leave a gap
>> between it and the rest of the sentence.
>>
>> I think that using a list is the wrong way to do this. Anybody got
>> any better ideas?
Yes, how about a good reading of the TeXbook for the whole lot of you?
This paragraph capability is native to TeX, which is, after all, a
fairly capable typesetting program, wouldn't you say? The above
paragraph shape is handled nicely by \hangindent. You can even set up
exotic paragraph 'shapes' with \parshape, which lets you specify the
length and left offset of each line of a paragraph. If you want to
typeset a poem that has odd shape, for instance, \parshape could be
the thing for you.
Try this:
\hangindent=x\hangafter=y % substitute numeric dimensions for x and y.
The x is a dimension that represents the amount of indentation. If it is
positive, the indentation happens at the left. Otherwise at the right.
The y is an integer that represents the last line that is not
indented. If it's 4 for instance, then the indentation will start on
line 5. On the other hand, if y is negative, the indentation will be
applied to lines [1,|y|] and reset to normal thereafter.
\parshape N i1 l1 i2 l2 i3 l3 i4 l4 ... in ln
N is the number of lines in the paragraph shape. If the paragraph
turns out longer, the shape will repeat as many times as necessary.
If the paragraph turns out shorter, the extra dimensions will be
ignored.
The (i,l) pairs are dimensions applied to each line. The i
is the indentation, and the l is the length.
- Kaz
--
"... nobody really knows what the Bourne shell's grammar is. Even examination
of the source code is little help. "
-Tom Duff, "Rc -- A Shell for Plan 9 and UNIX Systems"
jad...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
>From: sie...@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman)
>Subject: Re: Unusual Paragraph Indent
>Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 12:10:05 -0800
>In article <MURPHYCM.95...@satan.aston.ac.uk> murp...@aston.ac.uk
>(Chris Murphy) writes:
>>
>> > I'm trying to get an unusual paragraph indentation as follows. The
>> > first line in the paragraph is flush with the left margin but the
>> > subsequent lines are slightly indented. Apart from the first line,
>> > both sides are justified. Here is an example:
>> >
>> >
>> > The first line of the paragraph is longer
>> > than the second and the third and indeed
>> > all the subsequent ones. This continues
>> > up to the end of the paragraph where the
>> > whole process starts again.
>Am I missing the point here, or is this a case of LaTeX once again driving
>out TeX? Isn't \hangindent, and its relatives, intended to accomplish
>exactly this?
It certainly seems odd to me... I know TeX quite well, but LaTeX hardly at
all. I wouldn't even have considered that LaTeX might make it so hard for
people to put a simple hanging margin into a document, when it's so common
and so easy to do in TeX.
I'm going to make the move to LaTeX eventually, but I wanted to make sure I
really understood plain TeX first. Problems like this convince me that this is
the right way to do it.
Incidentally, the WP I used 13 years back handled this just fine on a tiny
little 8 bit micro, but when I moved to PCs and RISC machines I was amazed at
how hard they made it to do the same...
(Problems like lack of support convince me that my future isn't with plain
TeX though...)
James
HERBERT GINTIS
The \newevironment solution is, however, better than the \hangindent
solution, since \hangindent must be used before every paragraph of the
text, whereas \newenvironment need only be used at the beginning and
end of the text.
The suggestion that everyone read the TeXBook from cover to
cover appears to me to be an unreasonable one. People want software to
work for them, not to have to work for the software. When software is
hard to use, the fault is always with the product, not with the user.
In this respect TeX is highly deficient. It was written by a
mathematician/programmer for others of that type, and it shows.
Herbert Gintis
Department of Economics
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
gin...@econs.umass.edu
Ole Michael Selberg
(HERBERT GINTIS) wrote:
> The \newevironment solution is, however, better than the \hangindent
> solution, since \hangindent must be used before every paragraph of the
> text, whereas \newenvironment need only be used at the beginning and
> end of the text.
Well, you could do it for every paragraph with \everypar. For instance:
\everypar={\hang\setbox0=\lastbox}
will indent every line of a paragraph except the first by the value of
\parindent. This works also in LaTeX.
Of course, this solution could have undesirable side effects, if it turns
out that \everypar wasn't empty. In that case you could try:
\edef\oldeverypar{\the\everypar}
\everypar={\hang\setbox0=\lastbox\oldeverypar}
--
Ole Michael Selberg
Institutt for oesteuropeiske og orientalske studier
Universitetet i Oslo
Pb. 1030 Blindern
N-0315 Oslo
jad...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
>From: gin...@titan.oit.umass.edu (HERBERT GINTIS)
[Snip]
> The suggestion that everyone read the TeXBook from cover to
>cover appears to me to be an unreasonable one. People want software to
>work for them, not to have to work for the software. When software is
>hard to use, the fault is always with the product, not with the user.
>In this respect TeX is highly deficient. It was written by a
>mathematician/programmer for others of that type, and it shows.
It does? Damn... I hadn't noticed. I like TeX and I think the TeXBook is
excellently written.
Ah, then again, I'm a mathematician and a programmer... ;)
(I could take issue with "When software is hard to use...". Typesetting is not
simple, so TeX isn't simple. If you're saying that using TeX is much more
difficult than understanding the typesetting then you may have a fair
criticism.)
James.
A. E. Siegman
> >cover appears to me to be an unreasonable one.
Well, I suppose consulting the TOC or scanning the Index are other options.
(The paragrqph style desired in the original msg of this thread was
called a "hanging indent" long before TeX came along.)
Robin Fairbairns
<jad...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <3q9f7q...@titan.oit.umass.edu>
>gin...@titan.oit.umass.edu (HERBERT GINTIS) writes:
>>work for them, not to have to work for the software. When software is
>>hard to use, the fault is always with the product, not with the user.
>>In this respect TeX is highly deficient. It was written by a
>>mathematician/programmer for others of that type, and it shows.
>
>It does? Damn... I hadn't noticed. I like TeX and I think the TeXBook is
>excellently written.
I like TeX, and I don't think the TeXbook isn't too bad, either.
>Ah, then again, I'm a mathematician and a programmer... ;)
So am I; but perhaps I've been around long enough to learn that things
I find easy are often excruciating for others (who in their turn can
do with ease things that are quite beyond me).
LaTeX took on because its author (a mathematician and a computer
scientist, too) spotted a niche in the `market' and filled it. I
sometimes find myself enfuriated by things in LaTeX, and I don't
particularly like Lamport's views on document structure -- but I _do_
like the concepts behind LaTeX, indifferently executed though they
may be.
jad...@hermes.cam.ac.uk
>In article <jad1002.8...@hermes.cam.ac.uk>,
>>>In this respect TeX is highly deficient. It was written by a
>>>mathematician/programmer for others of that type, and it shows.
>>
>>It does? Damn... I hadn't noticed. I like TeX and I think the TeXBook is
>>excellently written.
>I like TeX, and I don't think the TeXbook isn't too bad, either.
>>Ah, then again, I'm a mathematician and a programmer... ;)
>So am I; but perhaps I've been around long enough to learn that things
>I find easy are often excruciating for others (who in their turn can
>do with ease things that are quite beyond me).
Should have made that smilie bigger... I was actually agreeing with the
original poster who critised TeX for being unashamedly directed at a certain
section of the community. Certainly for a lot of us the style of the TeX
operation is what we're used to, and is executed very well for that style.
Then again, the formality that mathematicians come to believe is "natural" is
anything but... maybe this is why there are so many other books about TeX for
people who prefer different styles.
>LaTeX took on because its author (a mathematician and a computer
>scientist, too) spotted a niche in the `market' and filled it.
The niche being people who wanted good-looking output without having to become
semi-expert typographers? And who wanted documents which were markedly easier
to manipulate that those <programmed> in plain Tex? I'm genuinely intrigued...
what do you perceive as being the niche which is currently filled by LaTeX?
>I sometimes find myself enfuriated by things in LaTeX, and I don't
>particularly like Lamport's views on document structure -- but I _do_
>like the concepts behind LaTeX, indifferently executed though they
>may be.
>--
>Robin (Campaign for Real Radio 3) Fairbairns r...@cl.cam.ac.uk
Maybe I should read Lamport before I take this much further. (!)
James
Mike Piff
>
>Does anyone know the struct of tfm file? I will be very pleased if
>someone tells me that. Giving the C "include" file is better.
Better still, get tex.web from CTAN, which has a description and also
the *Pascal* source of TeX.
Mike Piff
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%
%% Dr M J Piff, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of
%%
%% Sheffield, UK. +44 114 282 4431 mailto:M.P...@sheffield.ac.uk
%%
%% http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/I-M/ms/
%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%
Mike Piff
>
>Does anyone know the struct of tfm file? I will be very pleased if
>someone tells me that. Giving the C "include" file is better.
Get tftopl to convert to ascii form and pltotf to convert back.
J.Goldberg
In article <jad1002.8...@hermes.cam.ac.uk>, jad...@hermes.cam.ac.uk writes:
|> In article <3qau1s$l...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> r...@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
|>
|> >LaTeX took on because its author (a mathematician and a computer
|> >scientist, too) spotted a niche in the `market' and filled it.
|>
|> The niche being people who wanted good-looking output without having to become
|> semi-expert typographers? And who wanted documents which were markedly easier
|> to manipulate that those <programmed> in plain Tex? I'm genuinely intrigued...
|> what do you perceive as being the niche which is currently filled by LaTeX?
Let me try to produce a partial answer in terms of why I switched
from years of using Plain to LaTeX for most of my work.
Over the years I had been developing my on set of plain macros for
doing size changes and producing documents in something other than 10pt CM.
I also had macros for various forms of lists, for headers and footers,
sectioning and subsectioning. I used TiB for my bibliographies.
For various reasons I needed to use DOS extensively and I couldn't
port TiB (BTW does anyone have a DOS port of TiB; I do really dislike
BiBTeX), so I thought I would use BibTeX, and not knowing about eplain,
I figured that I had better start using LaTeX. When I tried to buy the
book, I found that it was off the shelves because a new edition was coming
out; so I browsed around the bookstore and a book called the LaTeX Companion
looked like the best book for someone who knew some TeX.
What I found with that book and the test release (Dec, 1993) of 2e was
that someone had written all of the stuff that I was trying to write for
myself, and for the most part had done it better. Not only was it
better, but it was largely configurable. If you aren't afraid of changing
the cat-code of @, it was very configurable. (although not as much
as I discovered when I tried to get all uppercase section headings).
LaTeX also provided a set of tools that make the addition of macro packages
much easier.
LaTeX encourages structural markup, both with what is already in it, but
particulary with the ease at which new environment can be created. IMHO
structural mark-up is a good thing.
Naturally it would be absurd to claim that these sorts of things would
be impossible with Plain TeX, but it might mean reinventing LaTeX.
The main drawback with LaTeX (in addition to what Robin mentioned below)
is that there is nothing like the TeX book.
Fortunately, there is the Companion and the documentation that comes with
the code. (Still, I would like someone to tell me the difference between
\newcommand{\foo}{...} and \newcommand\foo{...}.)
|> >I sometimes find myself enfuriated by things in LaTeX, and I don't
|> >particularly like Lamport's views on document structure -- but I _do_
|> >like the concepts behind LaTeX, indifferently executed though they
|> >may be.
There are a number of VERY annoying things, but I have found that it
is well worth it.
|> Maybe I should read Lamport before I take this much further. (!)
If you are going to read one book, read the Companion.
-jeff (neither a mathematician nor computer scientist)
--
Jeffrey Goldberg
Email: J.Gol...@Cranfield.ac.uk
WWW: <http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/>
Zou Gang
Timothy Murphy
>Does anyone know the struct of tfm file? I will be very pleased if
>someone tells me that. Giving the C "include" file is better.
If you look at tftopl.web (for example) you will find
that one section is a rigorous definition of the TFM format.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Donald Arseneau
>(Still, I would like someone to tell me the difference between
>\newcommand{\foo}{...} and \newcommand\foo{...}.)
There is no real difference in LaTeX. The documentation does not
mention that braces can be omitted around some command parameters,
but I cannot conceive of \newcommand being changed to *require*
braces. Other commands, I can conceive of such a change being made.
However, the parser of latex2HTML *does* require the braces, so if you
might possibly run that package on your document, then you must include
the braces.
Donald Arseneau as...@reg.triumf.ca
Mike Piff
>
> The \newevironment solution is, however, better than the \hangindent
>solution, since \hangindent must be used before every paragraph of the
>text, whereas \newenvironment need only be used at the beginning and
>end of the text.
>
However, you can get \hangindent in front of every paragraph by means
of \everypar{}. By this time you have almost re-invented the list
environment, so why not use it?
Mike
Mike Piff
>In article <1995Jun1.134727@berlin>, J.Gol...@Cranfield.ac.uk writes...
>>(Still, I would like someone to tell me the difference between
>>\newcommand{\foo}{...} and \newcommand\foo{...}.)
>
>There is no real difference in LaTeX. The documentation does not
>mention that braces can be omitted around some command parameters,
..although you can make TeX work really hard if you start typing
$a^\longrightarrow...$, so it is a matter of knowing when it is safe
to omit brackets and when not. Having discovered that $a^n$ works,
imagine the surprise on finding that
\newcommand\p{m+n}
$a^\p$
doesn't *quite* work as expected!
However, having to remember when you say
\foo{\bar}
and when
\foo{bar}
is really inexcusable...
(See \newcounter and \newlength, and their ilk.)
Ilya Zakharevich
Donald Arseneau <as...@erich.triumf.ca> wrote:
>
> However, the parser of latex2HTML *does* require the braces, so if you
> might possibly run that package on your document, then you must include
> the braces.
>
> Donald Arseneau as...@reg.triumf.ca
With respect to latex2html: is there a clone of dvi2dvi that will
extract contents between \special{mark1} and \special{mark2}?
This one, and one that can list specials in .dvi, and that can reduce
a page to a "bounding box" should greatly simplify life of converter
writers.
Ilya
Jon Claerbout
Tex and Web are great for people whose lives have only
1. Math typesetting
2. Programs
but some of us have lots more in them
3. Data bases
4. Graphics
5. Calculations leading to multimedia
6. Interactive education programs, etc.
7. Humongous makefiles and software distribution systems
Few can handle all these things well.
We want the essential features, maybe like the
"style sheets" now being developed for HTML.
.XP
Incidentally, ten years ago I used the original UNIX typsetter,
troff with Berkeley -ms macros. The easily remembered
macro .XP begins a paragraph eXdented like this one.
Tabs were easy to set too.
--
o ~
_-'\_ ~ Jon Claerbout: FREE BOOKS http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/prof
(*)<(*) ~ j...@sep.stanford.edu http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon