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