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 >>> creating)? >> >> 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 :-) -- Joseph Wright