Re: Differences in `ne` and `bp` line-breaking behavior > 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. Doug
