Exponentiation operator precedence

[Mark S. Miller]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com>
wrote:

> On 08/26/2015 15:08, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>> The force of that precedent is indeed what my objection is. The "yield"
>> counter-example is interesting, but "yield" is an identifier not an
>> operator symbol, and so does not as clearly fall within or shape operator
>> expectations.
>>
>> If someone explains a compelling need for ** I would find that
>> interesting. But until then...
>>
>
> ** is a convenience, and that's the wrong criterion to apply here.  If it
> were, then we wouldn't have useful conveniences like Math.cosh or arrow
> functions.
>
> I'd rather read
>
>   a*x**3 + b*x**2 + c*x + d
>
> than
>
>   a*Math.pow(x, 3) + b*Math.pow(x, 2) + c*x + d





Ok, we have a benefit to evaluate. Brevity. With the example contrast
between

    a*x**3 + b*x**2 + c*x + d

and

    a*Math.pow(x, 3) + b*Math.pow(x, 2) + c*x + d

Let's also apply Alexander's suggestion

    a*x.pow(3) + b*x.pow(2) + c*x + d

To help us compare for brevity, and because I'm too lazy to count, I'm
sending it in a fixed width font.


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150826/dc385239/attachment.html>