bug#43902: closed (28.0.50; Calc: Wrong eval precedence rules with LaTeX language)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:40:43 +0200
with message-id <C6DF360B-9CD7-4B3A-9902-B7DA7CCC9E21@acm.org>
and subject line Re: bug#43902: 28.0.50; Calc: Wrong eval precedence rules with 
LaTeX language 
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #43902,
regarding 28.0.50; Calc: Wrong eval precedence rules with LaTeX language
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
43902: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=43902
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> 28.0.50; Calc: Wrong eval precedence rules with LaTeX language
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 10 Oct 2020 09:02:34 +0200
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> here is a recipe for emacs -Q:
>
> M-x calc RET
> d L                     ;; calc-latex-language
>  '                      ;; calc-algebraic-entry
> 1+1/2 RET
>
> The result is 1, and the Trail shows alg' (1 + 1) / 2.  It does not make
> much sense to me to use a precedence rule where addition has higher
> precedence than division.  I know LaTeX a bit and don't expect such a
> result, and it doesn't seem to be documented.  Is it intended or a bug?
>
> TIA,
>
> Michael.
>
>
> In GNU Emacs 28.0.50 (build 62, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.23, 
> cairo version 1.16.0)
>  of 2020-10-09 built on drachen
> Repository revision: 6b346963d5a5bdb37cf3ecb50ce6d7dc6ec32d20
> Repository branch: master
> Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.12008000
> System Description: Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#43902: 28.0.50; Calc: Wrong eval precedence rules with LaTeX language 
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:40:43 +0200
>
>
>
>
> Very well, since Jay couldn't recall the reason for the precedence change 
> either -- it was a long time ago -- I have no reverted it back to the previous 
> level where it sits between '+' and '*', which should be compatible with how 
> humans interpret what TeX renders.
>
> Pushed to master and closed.
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---