I became a little unsure regarding to grammar while writing a sentence that, "... will either pass through the top-right or bottom-left corner, during which ...", in which case "which" has an implied antecedent of "passing through". I believe this sentence is clear enough, but wonder whether such usage of "which" may be disapproved in formal or academic writing.
more examples:
"He resigned that post, after which he engaged in ranching."
"He died of cancer, which is what I predicted"
In the first case, use two sentences; figuring out the geometry has used up this one.
"Such usage of which" is not "frowned on"; but it does require a lot of interpretation by the reader.
What passes for good writing mostly is just not loading too much information into one sentence.
I.e, this is not a grammatical problem -- the relative clause is well-formed -- but a writing problem.
As can be seen in the other two examples
He resigned that post, after which he engaged in ranching.
He died of cancer, which is what I predicted.
a relative clause referring to a prior clause is perfectly grammatical. Even a preferred choice, provided one doesn't expect a simple structure to do all the heavy lifting involved in description.
The first example looks fine to me, though a clearer alternative may be:
He resigned his post, then engaged in ranching.
or
He resigned his post, before taking up ranching.
In the second example, the following reads better:
He died of cancer, as I had predicted.
replacing the "which" and changing the tense of your historical prediction.
