Follow-up Comment #6, bug #66447 (group groff):
[comment #5 comment #5:]
> I know that for other requests, I sometimes want to "schedule" something
> to take place when the next break happens without actually _causing_ a
> break. I haven't thought carefully through enough scenarios to decide
> that this would never be the case with `ne`.
>
I thought that's the entire purpose of the no-break control char, no?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66447>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
