Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:70336
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.196 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52914DA8.7050303@ajf.me>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 00:51:52 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
CC: Tjerk Meesters <tjerk.meesters@gmail.com>, 
 PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAHMUw2GyyABzaVjcMML8hhqm0gxCS5i-fzO5EE-e4b114OPRGA@mail.gmail.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.10.1311231742510.5542@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <CAKOpQSw=_Gmv_hCimkoviL+6D4A1OwFBc4zuLkf3dFDWCqzcig@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSw=_Gmv_hCimkoviL+6D4A1OwFBc4zuLkf3dFDWCqzcig@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] rfc: pow-operator
From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds)



On 24/11/13 00:31, Kris Craig wrote:
> We should be following standard Order of Operations here.  As such, the
> option of no associativity should be included.  Furthermore, there needs to
> be a voting option regarding how to deal with even exponents of negative
> bases; i.e. treat "-3 ^ 2" as "-3 ^ 2 == 9" or as "-(3 ^ 2) == -9".
>
> Without those options, my vote would be a firm No.
>

I am worried that adding so many options might cause problems. Is it 
fair if it passes 3/4, but there is only a plurality for, say, 
left-associativity or right-associativity? What if someone votes for it, 
but would not have voted for it were it to be left-associative?

I suggest that either Tjerk makes a decision for us and offers a 
straight Yes/No choice, or he limits the choices to very few and 
combines them, so:

* Yes, right-associative

* Yes, left-associative

* No

Oh, and for my personal thoughts on the matter: I know ** from Python, 
and I think (2 ** (3 ** 2)) is more useful than ((2 ** 3) ** 2), so I'd 
like (-2 ** 3 ** 2) to be -(2 ** (3 ** 2)), just as Python does it.

-- 
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/