Re: Differences in `ne` and `bp` line-breaking behavior

[Deri]

On Sunday, 1 December 2024 23:51:22 GMT G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I don't agree with this change, because it's not necessary.  Formatter
> requests are primitive things.  Most requests don't also perform breaks.
> Only a handful do.  Those that do support the no-break control character
> to _schedule_ a change to formatter state at the next break, when that
> happens for some other reason.

I agree with Branden here, because my understanding of ".ne 5" is that if the 
current partial line would intrude into the needed space then a new page is 
started before the partial line is flushed (because ".ne" is not documented as 
one of the commands which automatically flushes a partial line - whereas ".bp" 
is so documented).

To achieve what you want is simply a matter of adding a ".fl" before the ".ne" 
in your definition of the "p" macro. However, this would mean the "quet sed." 
will appear within the 5 line area, i.e. the same as if you used ".ne 4".

Onf is correct, there is a difference in behaviour between "ne" and "bp", one 
is documented to flush any partial line (line break) and one is not. It seems 
wrong to make a change which would mean that any current document using ".ne" 
would have to change to "'ne" to retain the current behaviour, particularly 
when it is simply a case of adding a .fl before the .ne to achieve the 
behaviour onf prefers.

Cheers 

Deri