Hi Branden,
On Thu Dec 5, 2024 at 3:57 AM CET, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2024-12-04T14:46:00-0500, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> > How about
> >
> > .ne d Spring the next vertical postion trap if it is nearer than
> > distance d (default scaling unit v). In the absence of a
> > trap, break to a new page if page bottom is nearer than d.
>
> This is the new front-runner in my view. I think I'd prefer to say
> "break the page", and to massage the rest of the sentence accordingly.
>
> Also I like that we don't have to mention, let alone belabor, my
> "implicit page trap" coinage in this brief summary.
s/postion/position
I would disagree with this wording. It doesn't make it obvious enough
that a vertical movement is involved. I feel like if I had less
knowledge, I could interpret it as springing the trap "in advance",
i.e. before the vertical position reaches the trap's position.
I would also like to note that returning to the phrase "break page"
will, once again, clash with its usage in the description of `bp`,
which also implicitly breaks line (whereas in ne's case it does not).
Something like this would be somewhat better:
.ne d Skip to the next vertical position trap (and spring it) if
it is nearer than distance d (default scaling unit v).
In the absence of a trap, transition to the next page if
page bottom is nearer than d.
but I feel like the version you proposed earlier which described
vertical movement being emitted captured it more precisely, because
vertical movement does not imply a line break whereas a page break might
(turning to `bp` again). Alternatively, the fact that `bp` implies
a line break whereas the term "break page" itself does not could
somehow be made more obvious; not sure about the specifics.
~ onf
