Skip to main content
TeX - LaTeX

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • But surely this is different from what I described in the comment above? Surely .00001pt glue constitutes only a trivial and indiscernible flexibility? Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 11:29
  • @Lawrence If you have to cover a club line, with a 40 line page and 12pt baseline skip, you need to distribute those 12pt over 38 interlines, that makes a need for 0.31579pt in each. Note that even 1sp flexibility allows for arbitrary stretching, but this will probably result in so high a badness that the Underfull \vbox message is issued nonetheless. Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 11:50
  • Nice point about the club/widow issue - it's another trap if \pagestretch etc are all 0, but as Lawrence points out it is probably not what threw the warnings he saw. I do agree (with egreg) about the \baselineskip kludge. It can be useful in some contexts, but for most documents it needs more careful thought. Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 11:57
  • 1
    @AndrewKepert I expanded my answer also taking into account the proposed amount of flexibility. Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 12:08
  • 3
    @Lawrence Saying \hspace{0pt plus 3pt} doesn't mean that the space will be at most 3pt, if stretching it is needed. The stretch can be arbitrary, at the expense of badness. This happens for all types of glue, but not for shrinking, where the amount states an absolute maximum. That's by rule of TeX, blame Knuth for it. ;-) Commented Sep 10, 2015 at 12:20