Hi Ingo,
> > - real number arithmetic to replace current integer arithmetic
>
> Do you really mean "replace", or rather something like "complement" or
> "provide in addition to"? If you do mean "replace", i fear
> compatibility issues. Besides, isn't integer arithmetics better
> suited to some tasks than real number arithmetic?
I wouldn't have thought it could replace. I think Ted has uses for it,
IIRC. As Werner says, Decimal might be a better bet than
floating-point. Or would fixed-point be good enough, like dc(1)
provides? Ted?
> > - operator precedence to replace current linear evaluation of
> > expressions
>
> I fear this will need an option to preserve traditional behaviour for
> existing documents, but maybe that goes without saying, since
> compatibility is addressed both above and below.
Whenever it's been discussed in the past, I've assumed a new syntax to
introduce a precedence expression. Groff has already added
* Scaling: `(C;E)'. Evaluate E using C as the default scaling
indicator. If C is missing, ignore scaling indicators in the
evaluation of E.
I was wondering if C could also have an optional flag to indicate normal
precedence for E. Or perhaps the `;' could be something else?
Cheers, Ralph.
