Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:39:02 +0100
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
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
Seems OK to me (if I've understood correctly).