Re: Re: [vote] pow-operator

Hi Hannes, On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Hannes Magnusson < hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Tjerk Meesters > <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Kris, > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >>> That said, if there are other reasons for voting 'no' besides > >>> associativity, feel free to shoot me an email or discuss it on the > list. > >>> > >> > >> What did it for me was the lower precedence for the unary minus. I > don't > >> want to have another language that thinks a negative number squared is a > >> negative number. I understand and respect your reasoning as outlined in > >> the RFC, but this is a deal-breaker for me. > >> > > > > I've had a short discussion with Anthony about this and he convinced me > > that I was indeed wrong about my "unary minus" reasoning; therefore I > have > > updated the RFC to reflect that. So: > > > > > I'm a little bit confused. > > Are you modifying the poll, and the rfc itself, in the middle of a vote? > You're right. I've made a faux pas, I shouldn't have done that. Sorry Kris, the change is reverted; in fact, the following documents back up my original implementation choice: - http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53194.html - http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/491933/exponent-rules-with-negative-numbers - http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/68833/what-does-22-evaluate-to/68834#68834 If the conceptual design of php is that unary operators must bind stronger than any binary operator, we would have to restart the vote but I'm hoping that won't be necessary. I shouldn't make decisions before coffee. Apologies for the confusion! > > -Hannes > -- -- Tjerk