Re: Re: rfc: pow-operator

Hi Pierre, On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chris London <me@chrislondon.co> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Tjerk Meesters < > tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >> 2. The available votes for the associativity is reduced to either right > or > >> non associative; I'd rather see it done right (pun intended) or done in > a > >> way whereby the developer must put parentheses to disambiguate. > >> > > > > I completely agree. Here's another resource that explains a little more > why > > the exponent comes before the negation: > > http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55709.html > > Replying here about the general idea of having power as an operator, I > really like the optimization brought by this change. > > However I don't really like ** and all the confusions it brings > (whether other languages support it or not, from a precedence point of > view). > > Should it not be possible to do something similar than isset? Changing > pow from a function to operator? The big advantage is that any > existing code will benefit from it without code changes. > Speeding up existing code sounds like a very good idea actually :) I'll look into this. > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org > -- -- Tjerk