>> Meanwhile, is this something that would break AT&T troff if groff
>> were to do it right?
>
> The question is, what is "right"? I believe you're looking for a
> mapping of integers to booleans, and a "not" operator for booleans.
Well, he's certainly looking for making `!' work within an expression
too. However, I'm not sure, given the unique `true' and `false'
treatment in troff, whether it is worth the trouble. Compound
expressions can always split into single ones which are usually far
easier to read and to comprehend – or am I missing something?
> [ntg]roff already has both (in a way): [...]
Nice! I haven't thought of this. Do you think it makes sense to
document this in groff.texinfo?
Werner
