Re: [Groff] on type bool

[Bernd Warken]

On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 02:00:07PM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> While I basically agree that having a real bool type is a nice thing,
> and agreeing that your suggestion is the right solution to the
> problem, I wonder whether there are more important things to do in
> groff:
> 
IMHO having `bool' is the first step to have stable classes for 
implementing Unicode.

>   . Transition to Unicode.  This has highest priority to me, but
>     unfortunately it is delayed most.  I will create a `stable' branch
>     after the next release (scheduled for end of May) to receive bug
>     fixes only, while the trunk will eventually become groff 2.0 with
>     Unicode support.


Bernd Warken