Exponentiation operator precedence

[Claude Pache]

> Le 26 août 2015 à 00:43, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> a écrit :
> 
> When the costs were minor, it was ok that the benefits were minor. Given significant costs, we need to ask:
> 

While I don't have a strong opinion about the cost of the proposed modified grammar, I protest that the cost of the previous version wasn't anything near minor (although it was probably an oversight): having `-x**y` producing (literally) the opposite result of what is expected, and even only half of the time, is a high cost in terms of bugs produced and debugging man-hours lost.

—Claude

> 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 <mailto:claude.pache at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> > Le 25 août 2015 à 03:22, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com <mailto:jason.orendorff at gmail.com>> a écrit :
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Jason Orendorff
> > <jason.orendorff at gmail.com <mailto: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
> 
> "RightAssociativeExpression"?
> 
> —Claude
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150826/572849fb/attachment.html>