Re: [Groff] on type bool

[Werner LEMBERG]

> > 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.

Please explain.  For me, those things are completely unrelated.  [Note
that I don't oppose to your proposed changes, but my time constraints
are quite severe.]


    Werner