On 11/07/2014 00:20, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> I'm keen on leaving juxtaposition = multiplication, because that
> allows to use dimensionful numbers directly inside fp expressions (pt,
> in, ... are defined as floating point constants).  I believe that we
> should change the precedence of juxtaposition-as-multiplication from
> what it currently is (the tightest) to being the same as
> multiplication.  In other words, juxtaposition would behave exactly
> identically to adding an asterisk.

To be clear, continue to allow

  2x + 1
  2pt + 3cm

but with

  2x^2 + 2 = 2*(x^2) + 2

so for your example 25pc^2 requiring braces (0.25pc)^2?

> Would that make sense?  Am I missing something crucial (probably... I
> didn't realize when allowing juxtaposition what a mess I was
> creating)?

Seems OK to me (if I've understood correctly).
-- 
Joseph Wright