On 11/07/2014 17:23, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
> On 7/11/14, Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 11/07/2014 00:20, Bruno Le Floch wrote:
>>> 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
>> Seems OK to me (if I've understood correctly).
> Yes you did. Cf my other email: how should the change happen?
As I said there, with a 'breaking' change (which sometimes simply can't
be avoided) all we can do is warn that there is one. Write the code and
test properly and I'll worry about the release announcement :-)