> > I have discovered recently that `ne` and `bp` behave differently in > > regards to pending input lines. `bp` breaks such lines, while `ne` > > does not. In practice this means that `ne` does not behave like a > > conditional `bp` as one would reasonably expect. > > I invented .ne 55 years ago and have never heard a complaint about its > design before. It is not a conditional .bp, because that would case a > line break, which .ne never does, nor should.
Also, .ne need not have to do with page breaks. It tests whether the required amount of space is available *before the next trap*, but that trap doesn't have to be an end-of-page trap. It could be any trap set up for a specific purpose, in particular also a diversion trap.
