Exponentiation operator precedence
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Wed Aug 26 08:06:54 UTC 2015
I completely agree. My "When the costs were minor" refers to when we were
not yet aware of the conflict.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Claude Pache <claude.pache at gmail.com>
> 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.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss