Re: [Groff] Mission statement

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Ingo,

> > - real number arithmetic to replace current integer arithmetic
> 
> Do you really mean "replace", or rather something like "complement" or
> "provide in addition to"?  If you do mean "replace", i fear
> compatibility issues.  Besides, isn't integer arithmetics better
> suited to some tasks than real number arithmetic?

I wouldn't have thought it could replace.  I think Ted has uses for it,
IIRC.  As Werner says, Decimal might be a better bet than
floating-point.  Or would fixed-point be good enough, like dc(1)
provides?  Ted?

> > - operator precedence to replace current linear evaluation of
> > expressions
> 
> I fear this will need an option to preserve traditional behaviour for
> existing documents, but maybe that goes without saying, since
> compatibility is addressed both above and below.

Whenever it's been discussed in the past, I've assumed a new syntax to
introduce a precedence expression.  Groff has already added

   * Scaling: `(C;E)'.  Evaluate E using C as the default scaling
     indicator.  If C is missing, ignore scaling indicators in the
     evaluation of E.

I was wondering if C could also have an optional flag to indicate normal
precedence for E.  Or perhaps the `;' could be something else?

Cheers, Ralph.