On Sun, Dec 1, 2024 at 8:27 PM G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > By contrast, your sample size for `ne` misuse is one--yourself. > Formerly two, before I came to understand the request.
Well, I agree with onf's point that .ne's behavior defies user expectation, so you can lump me in with that sample. Now, plenty of other roff behaviors also defy expectation, but we keep them around for back-compatibility reasons. The reason I suggested starting this thread was to find out whether .ne's nonbreaking behavior is one that any users rely on. And this remains an open question: so far the discussion has been mostly theoretical. > Moreover, I don't think `ne` will ever see uptake among man page > authors--for a couple of good reasons. This is at best a tangential point: roff is used for plenty of things besides man pages. Arguably, man pages shouldn't use .ne at all for the various reasons you cite. So discussions about how .ne should behave fall primarily under the domain of non-man documents. > "Part of my motivation for reforming/revising adjustment management is > that I see people mis-applying the existing language feature." > > Show me exhibits of people besides yourself making the same mistake with > `ne`. The syntax of \s was altered not because of exhibits of its misuse, but because its behavior was so aberrant that it surprised one of the most veteran of roff veterans. So I'm not sure the above is the right hurdle to ask a proposal to clear. I'd rather ask, does it make the language easier to grasp / more intuitive without introducing incompatibilities that will break historical usage?
