# Floatrow: \floatbox for single element floats

Is the use of \floatbox (\ffbox, \ttbox, ...) required in single element float enviornments? While the documentation of floatrow uses it in all its examples, I can't tell a difference between an image, with and without the \ffbox wrapper. Are there any reason to use the wrapper, if the float environment contains just a single element?

MWE:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{floatrow}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\floatsetup[figure]{style=Ruled}
\begin{document}
\begin{figure}
\ffigbox{ % Is this unneccessary verbosity? Or does it do some magic I miss?
\includegraphics{example-image-a}
\caption{A}
}{}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{example-image-b}
\caption{B}
\end{figure}
\end{document}


Is the documentation outdated, afterall it states that the two arguments of the macros that separate content and caption exist for historical reasons and it does not matter how you distribute your content between the too. Is it possible, that the examples in the documentation have not been updated since the second argument becam obsolete?

• It makes a difference if you use [\FBwidth]. The real question is whether there is any point in using floatrow. – John Kormylo Apr 25 '18 at 3:20
• @JohnKormylo: After reading this thread (german), I thought that floatrow, while complex, is the most powerfull solution for subfigures. I quite like the global setup of caption positions and float styles. Appart from its supposed complexity, are there reasons to NOT use floatrow? – ted Apr 25 '18 at 11:02
• Aside from it not doing anything you can't do yourself, it often does things you don't want it to do. See tex.stackexchange.com/questions/403661/… – John Kormylo Apr 25 '18 at 13:15