Exponentiation operator precedence
isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 01:13:34 UTC 2015
I would have to agree with Mark on this one. I have yet to find anything
compelling for an exponentiation operator. I know multiple things that
would be more interesting, such as the proposed bind operator.
Several languages have it, but I don't think "it's in several other
languages, so it has to be in this language" is enough to merit an addition
to the language. And in my honest opinion, it doesn't look nice, either.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 18:43 Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> When the costs were minor, it was ok that the benefits were minor. Given
> significant costs, we need to ask:
> Why do we need ** ? What great benefit does it provide? If nothing
> compelling, then this proposal has lost consensus.
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Claude Pache <claude.pache at gmail.com>
>> > Le 25 août 2015 à 03:22, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jason Orendorff
>> > <jason.orendorff at gmail.com>
>> > P.S. Admittedly it might be a good idea to rename "UnaryExpression" if
>> > we put a binary operator in there.
>> > -j
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss