AndrewGPaul wrote:I wonder if in this instance, a better solution would be to change "the relationship between deindustrialisation and the growth of ..." to "the relationship between the growth of ... and deindustrialisation ". That might be easier to justify into this narrow column.
For manual typesetting by a competent writer/editor (sounds like a mish-mash job, in anything larger than a small-town newspaper/leaflet-producer where at least half the jobs are undertaken equally by at least half the employees, and the other employee is probably the spouse of the first and knows clearly enough what's in their mind) this is equivalent to the Filler solution, but perhaps with an expected level of competance.
I'm not sure I'd trust a Word Macro (or even anything in emacs) to correctly exploit such opportunities, though. It must catch potential swaps that are constrained to order by, for example, follow-up text such as "These two flags can be identified by being predominently red and vermillion, respectively." And even if syntactically linked to prior(/following) text about two swappable flag-related entities, allowing the 'respectivelies' to be switched in lockstep, what if reversing."red" and "vermillion" generates
a new line-feed crisis?
(Then there's something (contrivable) like "The correct order is, A, Bbbbbbbbbbb, Cc", with no guarantee that adding in something like "reverse(d)" can even be done in a useful manner, and even if it can it may also just switch (back?) the distribution problems from offset, in the attempt to mitigate the original typographical 'mess'.)
The solution is clearly to have no
line-breaks, and thus no justification is necessary. Write your text in a continuous spiral, or some variation upon setting out upon a space-covering Hilbert Curve, instead, perhaps...