Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66447 (group groff): At 2024-11-15T18:38:59-0500, anonymous wrote: > 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?
Yes, but like _most_ formatter requests, `ne` does not behave differently depending on the control character used to invoke it. In fact, I've considered adding a formatter "style" warning advising the user when they uselessly invoke a request with the no-break control character. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?62776#comment4 _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66447> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
