More than a half year ago you wrote:
>> +Attempting to insert the @samp{!} operator
>> +within the expression results in a
>> +@samp{numeric expression expected} warning. This
>> +maintains bug-compatibility
>> +with old versions of @code{troff}.
>
> It is not a bug that it works that way in troff.
I've fixed that now by removing `bug-'.
>> +@Example
>> +.nr X 1
>> +.nr Y 0
>> +.\" This does not work as expected
>> +.if (\n[X])&(!\n[Y]) .nop X only
>> +.
>> +.\" Use this construct instead
>> +.if (\n[X]=1)&(\n[Y]=0) .nop X only
>> +@endExample
>
> Perhaps this can have values other than 1 for X and use Tadziu's
> (1-\nX) with an explanation of why.
Can you provide a patch?
Werner
