The following \begin{doublespacing}
only affects FIRST
.
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{setspace}
\begin{document}
\begin{doublespacing}
FIRST
SECOND
\end{doublespacing}
THIRD
FOURTH
\end{document}
In contrast, \begin{spacing}{2.0}
affects both FIRST
and SECOND
.
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{setspace}
\begin{document}
\begin{spacing}{2.0}
FIRST
SECOND
\end{spacing}
THIRD
FOURTH
\end{document}
Why are they different?
Best Answer
With a 10pt (default) font size, the
setspace
package sets the following stretch factors for\onehalfspacing
and\doublespacing
: 1.25 and 1.667. I guess the rationale for this is that for many common fonts -- including Computer Modern and Times Roman -- the baselinestretch is 1.2 times the nominal font size. Sure enough,1.25 * 1.2=1.5
-- 50% more than the nominal font size -- and1.667 * 1.2=2.0
= twice the nominal font size.If, in contrast, you run
\begin{spacing}{2.0}
or, equivalently,\setstretch{2.0}
, you get even wider spacing -- by a factor of 1.2 -- than "doublespacing".Addendum to address the OP's follow-up comment: I'm not sure I understand the comment completely, but I believe it asserts that using the
spacing
environment (provided by thesetspace
package) with a factor of 1.667 produces line spacing that's different from using the command\setstretch{1.667}
.Please consider the following test program, which twice typesets a paragraph of filler text (produced via
\lipsum[3]
) in a two-column document. The left-hand column uses the environment\begin{spacing}{1.667} ... \end{spacing}
, whereas the right-hand column uses the command\setstretch{1.667}
. Sure enough, the line spacing in both paragraphs is the same.The outcome is the same if one (a) replaces
\begin{spacing}{1.667}
with\doublespacing
and (b) omits the instruction\end{spacing}
.