[texhax] could someone give me an explanation as to why fontsize fails with an overfull box

[Carlos]

Peter, thank you for your timely response in breaking down the explanation for me... I was going to reply earlier, but I got caught up in a few errands and now I'm getting an error with the same file but running under plain TeX- admittedly thankfully to the DVI previewer, or else I wouldn't have noticed it. The error came  with the following lines

xdvi: File corrupted (will try to reload) ...
xdvi: File reloaded.

At first glance and by looking at the contents of the file itself - and especially since I had been changing back and forth - messing - with different values from the previous latex files, it seemed that the output of the first plain TeX file was right, but upon closer look I noticed that by having the same values in an entirely different file this time around, I was getting different results. Of course, I confirmed that the correct output was indeed coming from the duplicate file.

The two plain TeX files have the same contents. There are a few things though that I recall doing, namely commenting out the word "Antivirus" but since the file was set edited with linebreaks, the remainder were not affected ... 

Surprisingly enough, when the second file (let's call it duplicate to avoid confusion) was edited, I did so without linebreaks, and even tried to recreate the same steps from before with the original plain TeX file, but even then the results were entirely different.

The original file was also run with pdftex, to what I happily complied and fulfilled while executing it with the 'duplicate' file. But the results are still different.

Why did I want plain TeX to handle it instead? Because someone asked me
why if it may very well the case that the spacing issue is the way to
loosen it, the first part of the log wasn't reflecting the other overfull
boxes.

The latex file had for the most part the code that Phillip suggested earlier, only this time around its values had changed to 1 instead. 


\fontdimen 2 \font = 1.00 \fontdimen 2 \font
\fontdimen 3 \font = 1.00 \fontdimen 3 \font


(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/ot1ptm.fd)
Overfull \hbox (2.92758pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 27--31
\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 tivirus pro-grams and what-ever other pro-grams|

\hbox(9.60976+3.05054)x252.94499, glue set - 1.0
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 t
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 i
.\kern-0.35228
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 v
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 i
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 r
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 u
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 s
.\glue 3.52269 plus 2.1136 minus 0.84541
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 p
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 r
.\OT1/ptm/m/n/14.0908 o
.\discretionary

But putting aside the above, and going by the plain TeX file in question, what I currently have is



\tracingall

\hsize=-2in

The reason is that upon restarting the computer, there are also other programs
that start running on the background, among them Antivirus programs and
whatever other programs Windows deems necessary for the functionality of
the system.

\bye


And the duplicate file is comprised of the same pattern, except perhaps a linebreak here and there from the editor, but nonetheless superficial




\tracingall

\hsize=2in

The reason is that upon restarting the computer, there are also other programs
that start running on the background, among them Antivirus
programs and
whatever other programs Windows deems necessary for the functionality of
the system.

\bye

And yet the shipped out page's results are so distant from one another, that I couldn't help but wondering if it is the most current distribution the underlying factor. I still find it troublesome that a newly edited file would provoked such pronounced differences.



@firstpass
@secondpass
[]\tenrm The
@ via @@0 b=* p=0 d=*
@@1: line 1.3 t=0 -> @@0
rea-
@\discretionary via @@1 b=* p=50 d=*
@@2: line 2.3- t=0 -> @@1
son
@ via @@2 b=* p=0 d=*
@@3: line 3.3 t=0 -> @@2
is
@ via @@3 b=* p=0 d=*
@@4: line 4.3 t=0 -> @@3
that
@ via @@4 b=* p=0 d=*
@@5: line 5.3 t=0 -> @@4
upon
@ via @@5 b=* p=0 d=*
@@6: line 6.3 t=0 -> @@5
restart-
@\discretionary via @@6 b=* p=50 d=*
@@7: line 7.3- t=0 -> @@6
ing
@ via @@7 b=* p=0 d=*
@@8: line 8.3 t=0 -> @@7
the
@ via @@8 b=* p=0 d=*
@@9: line 9.3 t=0 -> @@8
com-
@\discretionary via @@9 b=* p=50 d=*
@@10: line 10.3- t=0 -> @@9


And here is the 'correct' version first part of the duplicate file



@firstpass
@secondpass
[]\tenrm The rea-son is that upon restart-
@\discretionary via @@0 b=* p=50 d=*
@@1: line 1.3- t=0 -> @@0
ing the com-puter, there are also
@ via @@1 b=13 p=0 d=10529
@@2: line 2.1 t=10529 -> @@1
other pro-grams that start run-ning
@ via @@2 b=* p=0 d=*
@@3: line 3.3 t=10529 -> @@2
on the back-ground, among them
@ via @@3 b=3 p=0 d=169
@@4: line 4.2 t=10698 -> @@3
An-tivirus pro-grams and what-ever
@ via @@4 b=49 p=0 d=3481
@@5: line 5.3 t=14179 -> @@4
other pro-grams Win-dows deems
@ via @@5 b=63 p=0 d=15329
@@6: line 6.1 t=29508 -> @@5
nec-es-sary for the func-tion-al-ity of


Take care Peter. You too Philip, and Reinhard. David, saludos. List in general. Cheers.

Carlos.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot_2019-01-26_06-31-43.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20190126/2ae78bf7/attachment.png>